Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Urban Regeneration Grant

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications he has received from private sector companies for the urban regeneration grant.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): More than 30 schemes have been discussed with the Department. Thirteen are being appraised.

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. What further information does he have about this important new initiative, especially in terms of value for money, jobs and investment in the private sector?

Mr. Trippier: A good example is the Round Oak scheme in Dudley, which, for a grant of £3·25 million, has generated four times that figure from the private sector by way of investment. It will also generate more than 1,000 new jobs.

Mr. Fraser: When the poll tax doubles the average rate burden in the inner-city area of Lambeth, will the Secretary of State consider urban regeneration grants for private companies to compensate for the lack of purchasing power among their customers?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that urban regeneration grant is already available to people in Lambeth, especially to private developers.

Mr. Summerson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are long delays in processing urban regeneration grants and that that is causing a great deal of dismay in the property industry, which is doing its best to regenerate inner-urban areas?

Mr. Trippier: We are always looking at ways of simplifying the grant procedure and cutting out as much red tape and bureaucracy as we possibly can. We have to strike a fine balance between cutting out red tape and being the guardians of taxpayers' money.

Dr. Cunningham: Is it not true that, one year after this power was put on the statute book, not a penny of urban regeneration grant has been spent—no expenditure has been incurred by the Government? Is that not indicative of the shambles of the Government's inner-city policy? Is

it not because of this incompetence on the part of the Department of the Environment that the Prime Minister is now talking about taking these policy matters out of its hands altogether?

Mr. Trippier: I am glad to have this opportunity of welcoming the hon. Gentleman back after his recent illness. However, having said those nice things, I must tell him that he is absolutely wrong. The new scheme was introduced in April this year and had attendant publicity.

Dr. Cunningham: It became an Act a year ago.

Mr. Trippier: Of course, but it was introduced only in April this year, and, to a certain extent, it was overtaken by a certain event called the general election. The publicity for it was subsumed during that period for reasons that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge. Subsequently, we have resuscitated the publicity and the scheme has attracted a considerable number of applications.

Dr. Cunningham: The Government have not spent a penny yet.

Mr. Trippier: I answered that when answering the supplementary question.

Council Housing

Mr. Sackville: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce legislation to change the system of repairs and maintenance of council properties.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): We have no plans to make major changes. It remains every council's duty to keep its housing in good repair.

Mr. Sackville: I am disappointed to hear that, because many council tenants in my constituency have to wait a long time for repairs, and when they are done they often turn out to be inadequate and unprofessional. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is outrageous that my constituents should have to suffer hardship and inconvenience so that a Labour council can hang on to its DLO and give it the extra business that was previously done by private tradesmen?

Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that there is a problem in Bolton, and I do not have that only on the authority of my hon. Friend, although that would, of course, be enough. The council has also noticed that something is wrong and has commissioned a special survey on the quality of repair and maintenance. I hope that that will help, but I can only echo what my hon. Friend has said. Doubtless the council will be stimulated by the reforms that we are proposing to bring a more competitive regime into tendering for this kind of work.

Mr. Soley: Given that the appalling problems of disrepair and maintenance in the private sector are far worse than those in the public sector, and that there is also a problem in the public sector, why do the Government not put some public investment back into the public and private sectors to improve housing in this country?

Mr. Waldegrave: It may have escaped the attention of the hon. Gentleman that 100 per cent. of receipts can be used by the councils to which the question relates for capitalised repairs. That is a route that councils such as


Bolton should follow. Bolton council should consider their rents, because they are below the north-west regional average and well below the national average.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: While the Housing Bill is going through its stages in the House, will my hon. Friend look at the possibility of well-organised tenants' associations being given powers to look after their own maintenance and financial delegation, in the same way as those powers are being given by the Education Reform Bill to governing bodies?

Mr. Waldegrave: That suggestion is very positive. The right of tenants' choice that we are putting forward will give them exactly that kind of capacity. They will be able to organise secondary co-operatives, for example, to do exactly that sort of work. That is one of the attractions of the proposals.

River Pollution

Mr. Allan Roberts: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to reduce the levels of nitrate and nitrite pollution in Britain's rivers.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I am considering a number of initiatives for strengthening and extending water pollution controls and expect to make a statement on the Government's policies in the near future. In due course the National Rivers Authority will be responsible for maintaining river water quality.
As to drinking water quality, I have decided, after taking legal advice, that the term "maximum admissible concentration" in the European Community drinking water directive should relate to individual samples and not to averages over a period. This is a technical point. It concerns the appearance of water supplied and does not have health implications.

Mr. Roberts: I do not accept the Secretary of State's last remark about this being a technical point. It is about the quality of drinking water and this question is about river quality. Will the Secretary of State confirm that over the past few years river quality in Britain has deteriorated because of pollution from sewage, animal slurry and nitrates and nitrites, mainly from agriculture? As well as getting into drinking water and being linked to stomach cancer, these pollutants flow via the rivers into the North sea, over-fertilise the photo plankton, de-oxygenate the North sea and create conditions in which fish cannot live. Will he act on the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Environment and on the recommendation in the final draft declaration of the recent North sea conference of Ministers, to which he was a signatory, to declare nitrate protection zones, or is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food still holding up that declaration?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman's question is about nitrate levels in Britain's rivers. Nitrate levels in most rivers have remained fairly constant over the past 10 years. Very few water supplies with raised nitrate levels come from river sources. The hon. Gentleman asked about the progress of the North sea conference, which I chaired last week. I can tell him that we agreed on a substantial reduction in inputs of nutrients, which include nitrates, in those coastal and estuarial waters where nutrients are a serious problem. That means the shallow waters off

Denmark and Germany and to some extent off Holland and not, on present evidence, British coastal waters. I am certainly considering whether to create nitrate protection zones and I expect soon to come to a decision.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is yet another example of the environmental disadvantages of the common agricultural policy? Does he further agree that if farm products were priced at a lower level farmers would no longer find it economically justified to put very large quantities of nitrogen on their crops?

Mr. Ridley: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is right. I certainly do not think that this is a question with which to put into doubt our membership of the Community, which seems to be what my hon. Friend was doing. As farm incomes decline, I think that the farmer will be tempted to use more nitrates to try to bring about increased production at reduced cost.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the legal advice to which the Secretary of State refers any better than that which is usually given to him?

Mr. Ridley: It is all impeccably good.

London Docklands

Mr. Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to publish a report on the London Docklands Development Corporation's work on regeneration of the London Docklands.

Mr. Trippier: The LDDC itself publishes reports on an annual basis. It is required by statute to lay the annual report before Parliament. The reports have shown the enormous success which has been achieved within the London Docklands area.

Mr. Alexander: Is it not the case that, had it not been for the London Docklands Development Corporation, areas of otherwise very poor and derelict land would largely have remained so — thanks to the inactivity of the various councils that were administering them at the time? Does not the success of the LDDC since then point the way towards the regeneration of many other areas of our inner cities?

Mr. Trippier: That is correct, and that is why I was surprised to hear the amazing statement of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) during a debate in the House a few weeks ago to the effect that the massive development in Docklands would have taken place had a Labour Government been in power, which is stretching credulity to breaking point.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister ensure that the next LDDC report explains the extraordinary behaviour of the Secretary of State in sacking the vice-chairman of the LDDC, when the main target has gone completely untouched? Will the report explain how it is that 10 weeks ago people such as Mr. Martin Berney could be convicted of the offence of being an unlicensed estate agent in Docklands? Is he aware that the fraud squad is investigating property transactions and sales in Docklands and all sorts of matters which do not feature in the annual report? It does not disclose the sordid money-making schemes or the unaccountability, all of which is the domain of the Secretary of State, who is taking no interest in getting to the bottom of these scandals.

Mr. Trippier: It is grossly unfair of the hon. Gentleman to accuse my right hon. Friend of acting unfairly with regard to the dismissal of the vice-chairman of the LDDC board. The position as the hon. Gentleman may understand, is that information was brought to my right hon. Friend's attention only recently. He acted as he did because we now know that some of the information did not reveal that, subsequent to the vice-chairman's appointment, he had been prosecuted for a number of criminal offences. Prior to his appointment as vice-chairman of the board he was asked about liquidations, but no mention was made of the impending prosecutions. He was prosecuted and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, found guilty and fined. As a result, and because he did not tell the Department or the LDDC board, my right hon. Friend acted as he did. I would have thought that my right hon. Friend would receive the support of the House in his action.

Mr. Speaker: That goes a bit wide of the question.

Mr. Squire: As to the main objects of the LDDC, will my hon. Friend confirm that a substantial number of those housed within the area were previously on council waiting lists? Does not the amount of private investment, attracted by public investment, serve as a model for the rest of the country?

Mr. Trippier: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Some 12,000 new homes have been completed or are under construction. That has lifted the rate of owner-occupation in Docklands from 5 per cent. in 1981 to 29 per cent. in April 1987, and 22 purchasers of homes were former council tenants.

Rating Reform

Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has had to his plans for safety netting the poll tax in the metropolitan districts of the west midlands; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): We have pointed out, in response to a number of inquiries, that there is nothing new about the principle of a temporary safety net, which has always been part of the Government's proposals. Initial contributions to the safety net reflect resource transfers under the present system, but there will be a phased reduction of these distortions so that they are totally eliminated by 1994.

Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister deny that the Conservative Opposition leader in Birmingham, Councillor Hales, has sent what he describes as a rocket to the Secretary of State for turning the safety net in Birmingham and the rest of the west midlands into a surcharge? Will the Minister and his Department cease their vendetta once and for all against the city of Birmingham? The west midlands has been a soft touch long enough for the Government.

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is being a little slower than normal on the uptake. On 1 April 1987 my right hon. Friend first declared what the safety net was to be in Birmingham, on 1986–87 figures. The exemplification shows that the safety net was £65. The present exemplification shows that it will be £63. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's recognition of what Conservative

Members have been saying for a long time — the resource equalisation process is extremely unfair. We are committed to removing that unfairness over a four-year period. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is unfair and must be removed.

Mr. Beaumont: Dark: Has my hon. Friend's master yet to reply to Councillor Hales, the Conservative leader on the city council, who talked about his sense of incredulity and outrage at the way that Birmingham is being treated? Does he think that a man of that stature would say such things unless they were true? Why is Birmingham to be penalised when it has been penalised already? Why change one unjust tax for what is possibly an even more unfair tax?

Mr. Chope: I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that I think that he has completely missed the point. We are removing an unjust system, resource equalisation, but we shall phase it out over a four-year period. I cannot answer for those who did not realise that that would happen when the information was provided in a parliamentary answer in April to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett).

Water Meters

Mr. Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the cost of installing water meters in every household.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): There are no current plans to install water meters in every household. Ultimately it will be up to each water undertaker to decide whether investment in more widespread metering is worth while. The proposed compulsory metering trials will help to estimate the sorts of costs involved.

Mr. Barron: Given that in the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill the Minister has obviously decided that the initial costs will not fall solely on consumers, as money will come from central Government, will he assure us that if universal metering is adopted there will be central Government help so that the burden does not fall on the water consumers?

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman raised two points. With regard to the latter, no water authority has proposals at present for universal metering. In response to his other point, he is correct to state that a proportion — approximately 50 per cent.—of the metering trial costs will be paid for by the Government. Spread across all customers in England and Wales, the metering trials will add approximately 5p a year for four years to the average householder's bill for water and sewerage. We hope that savings will offset that.

Mr. Forman: Would not the gradual introduction of metering into water charging be consistent with the general principle of charging that the Government are now extending to local government? Does my hon. Friend have any estimates of the relative advantages of adopting that route as opposed to the present route, which is based on rateable value?

Mr. Moynihan: The whole purpose of developing the specific compulsory metering trials is to identify across socio-economic groups the effect of water metering and how effective that would be as a basis for charging in


future. My hon. Friend will agree that it is important that we await the outcome of the scientific evidence and detailed analysis of consumption figures based on the trials before we reach any specific assessment of future charging methods.

Mr. Morgan: Is the Minister fully aware that with gas and electricity — the nearest analogous industries to water—80 per cent. of the costs vary with consumption, but with water only 10 per cent. of the cost varies with consumption, the remainder being capital? Therefore, what relationship can water metering possibly have with controlling consumption?

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in other industries standing chargs cover the overhead and fixed costs. We are concerned about metering the consumption and we believe that it would be a far more accurate guide to measure and update consumption figures to assess whether water metering is the best way to move forward. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am aware that the Welsh Water authority is concerned about that. It has very high overhead and infrastructural costs. It is looking carefully at a form of charging that does not take into account the extent of unit consumption that other water authorities are considering.

Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be possible to start by introducing compulsory metering in new houses?

Mr. Moynihan: The simple answer is 'yes'. For that reason we have introduced an amendment to be considered during the latter stages of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill currently in Committee.

Water Charges

Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research is being undertaken on alternative methods of charging for water if rates are abolished.

Mr. Moynihan: I understand that the water industry is currently studying a number of options for charging for water services once domestic rateable values are abolished, and I expect to receive its conclusions shortly.

Mr. Vaz: Bearing in mind what the Secretary of State said on 21 October this year in the House, is he still considering the possibility of introducing a tap tax? Is he aware that when a window tax was introduced in 1697 it resulted in many people having to brick up their windows and that eventually the tax was abolished in 1851? Is he as concerned as I am at the social implications, expecially for the elderly, of introducing such a tax?

Mr. Moynihan: There is no intention whatsoever of introducing a tap tax. However, it is important that water authorities look in detail at all the options on tariffs and charging for the future. Obviously, that covers a wide range of issues from flat-rate charges to metering. It is highly unlikely, if not improbable in the extreme, that there could be an accurate form of charging in the future that is based on the number of taps in premises, not least because there could be two taps for hot and cold water in one bath, but one tap for both in another.

Mr. Tim Smith: Instead of a tap tax, surely the most sensible method of charging for water would be to charge

for the water that has been consumed? What estimates has my hon. Friend had made of the likely fall in total consumption if we were to have universal metering? In other words, how much water is wasted at the moment?

Mr. Moynihan: I agree with my hon. Friend that the present rating system is an unsound basis for charging and that it would be far better to move to the obvious method of charging by meter. Water loss differs across the country, as my hon. Friend is aware. However, it is estimated to be anything up to 30 per cent. of the water in the system. Obviously, that is an important issue, which is being tackled with great effectiveness by the water authorities.

Ms. Walley: Will the Minister confirm that a large amount of money has already been spent by each of the water authorities to pave the way for privatisation and that the cost of that, with which we have not been involved, will be included in the water charges that customers will have to pay in the future?

Mr. Moynihan: Any expenditure by the water authorities, including any that involves consultation, as in the exercises that are currently taking place with consumers about the possibility of metering trials, must be costed and brought before the House, and is always open to challenge by audit. The hon. Lady knows that, because it was discussed in Committee. Information on the specific amounts that have been spent on preparation for privatisation is not held centrally, but I understand that some of my hon. Friends have already written to water authorities on that subject.

Sir John Farr: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the alternative is likely to be metered water supplies, it will be of critical importance that cheap meters are available to elderly and poor people? Will he look into that problem, because at the moment the cost of metering is way beyond the reach of the average person?

Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the need to test different types of meters during the current trials to ensure that a cheap, efficient and effective meter is eventually in place. Therefore, it is important to test a range of meters, including the present mechanical rotary piston meter, which will be used in the trials and in general metering in the foreseeable future.

Mr. O'Brien: Is it not a fact that the only alternative to universal metering —the Minister says that as yet the Government have not made any provisions for universal metering—is an additional poll tax? On water loss, is it not a fact that between 25 and 30 per cent. of the water in the system is going to waste and that that should be arrested? As for alternative charges, will the Minister have regard to the installation and location costs of the meters, the life of the meter and its renewal, the reading and billing of the meters, their maintenance costs, the standing charges for water and sewerage, and a possible standing charge for environmental services? Is the Minister aware that substantial costs are involved in the alternatives to the present system?

Mr. Moynihan: I regret that the hon. Gentleman did not hear some of my earlier answers. Had he been listening, he would have heard me confirm that the leakage in the system was too high and that it was being tackled by the water authorities, and that the community charge was certainly not the only alternative to metering. I mentioned that a flat-rate charge was one of many ways


being considered by the Water Authorities Association. The hon. Gentleman spoke about a range of important issues to be taken into account on further metering trials. He will be aware that every one is being considered carefully and discussed in great detail during the Committee stage of the Bill.

Severn-Trent Water Authority

Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Severn-Trent water authority; and what subjects will be discussed.

Mr. Moynihan: My noble Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Water met the chairman of Severn-Trent water authority on 27 November. My right hon. Friend expects to meet him, with the other water authority chairmen, in January and I intend to visit the authority and some of its operational sites in the new year. No doubt we shall discuss our proposals for a National Rivers Authority and the excellent prospects of the water authorities for privatisation.

Mr. Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware that the chairman, Mr. John Bellak, is both diligent and competent —indeed, one might describe him as a good bloke—and that under his leadership the Severn-Trent water authority looks forward immensely to being in the van of privatisation? When my hon. Friend meets Mr. Bellak, will he tell Mr. Bellak that he will rise even further in our estimation if he brings about the new Cannock sewage works in 1993, if not in 1991?

Mr. Moynihan: I shall certainly relay my hon. Friend's latter point to Mr. Bellak when I meet him. I place on record the view of everyone in the water industry and hon. Members on both sides that Mr. Bellak is not only diligent and competent, but has a first-rate management team to support him.

Mr. Allan Roberts: When the Minister meets the chairman of the Severn-Trent water authority, will he discuss the Department of the Environment study No. 23? According to it, nitrate levels are rising in 100 water sources in Anglia and the Severn-Trent area, in 41 out of 125 ground water sources in the Severn-Trent area nitrates already exceed EC directive levels of 50 mls, and 1·8 million people are drinking nitrate polluted water. Will the Minister point out that water metering installations on a compulsory basis will cost more than £2 billion and that it would cost only £200 million to remove nitrates from water?

Mr. Moynihan: All water authorities must take important investment decisions to meet both our quota and European directive requirements. I shall certainly discuss with Mr. Bellak the important action that is being taken by his water authority to tackle the nitrate problem.

Rating Reform

Mr. McLoughlin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from businesses in the north of England concerning his proposals for a unified business rate.

Mr. Chope: There is an enthusiastic welcome for our proposals, which will restore a fair basis of rating and relieve many businesses from the excesses of high-spending authorities.

Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is correct. Is he aware that business people in my constituency are greatly looking forward to the unified business rate? It will save them the problem each year of facing a Left-wing Labour council's rates increases at some 26 per cent. and threats of higher rate levels. Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents are envious of other counties where rates are considerably lower? Is he aware that rates are an important part of a business's on-costs and that the sooner we have a fair system throughout the country and remove power from the commissars in the town halls, the better?

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I only hope that some day Opposition Members will understand how right he is.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Minister accept that while there may be a welcome in the north of England for the proposed unified business rate, if he moves north of the border he will find great anxiety, particularly among small businesses, which have already been subjected to three revaluations since 1973? Will he, therefore, look in particular at the proposals and comments made by the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses, particularly those from Scotland?

Mr. Chope: That question should really be put to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Gow: What messages of support for the uniform business rate has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received from our right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?

Mr. Chope: I am not aware that any such representations have been made.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: While I recognise that business people in Cumbria will pay 20 per cent. less under the unified business rate, is there not a cost? Is it not true that, under the poll tax — the compensating tax; the new rating system in effect—people in Cumbria, particularly west Cumbria, will find that their new rates are double or treble the previous amount? Will not the unified business rate mean that, while rates may be substantially reduced in areas outside the county of Cumbria, we shall lose our cutting edge as a Labour authority with low rating for businesses? Does that not mean that we shall no longer be able to attract business?

Mr. Chope: I do not agree with that at all. However, the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that Cumbria is a low-resource area. It has generally low rateable values, and at present it is being subsidised by the people of Birmingham. Often, poorer people in Birmingham are subsidising richer people in Cumbria. We think that that system is unfair, and that is why we want to do away with it.

Mr. Burns: Will my hon. Friend tell us whether, once the uniform business rate is in position, there will be any business ratepayer's consultations, as exist at present under the Rates Act 1984?

Mr. Chope: We have received representations from the Confederation of British Industry on that subject, and we


are seriously considering the future role for consultations. We consider it important that there should be continuing consultation between business and local authorities, because so many local authority decisions will affect businesses.

Dr. Cunningham: As the alleged enthusiastic welcome for a uniform business rate does not include the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the National Chamber of Trade, the Forum of Private Business Ltd., the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses or the London Chamber of Commerce, all of which bodies oppose it, will the Minister tell us who supports it?

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman misrepresents the position. For example, the CBI has accepted that the new system that we are proposing is a significant improvement on the existing one. Its only quarrel is that it feels that the excess amount by which extra payments have had to be raised from business over the past few years should be removed at a stroke. The proposal has many supporters in business.

Mrs. Peacock: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while there is concern in my part of the world about the domestic part of the rate reform, businesses — especially in Yorkshire—welcome the unified business rate because it is likely to lead to a reduction of some 20 per cent. in their rates?

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. Many businesses warmly welcome the prospect of the stability that will result from the new arrangements and the fact that it will not be possible for business rates to go up by more than the rate of inflation. That is one of the great advantages of the new system.

Royal Docks

Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision concerning the public inquiry in respect of planning applications for the redevelopment of the royal docks.

Mr. Waldegrave: If the hon. Member is referring to Rosehaugh Stanhope's application for the Royal Albert dock, I announced the decision not to call it in on 19 November.

Mr. Spearing: Irrespective of the merits of any local accommodation, does the Minister agree that that application is of great strategic importance? Can he tell us why his right hon. Friend did not take the advice of the London planning advisory committee to call it in? Is he not aware that, on the three sites, the total building could amount to between £3 billion and £4 billion, with a population of perhaps 10,000 residents, with as many jobs? Does not his leaving the matter to an unelected body appointed by the Secretary of State illustrate the Government's preference for authoritarian, centralised solutions?

Mr. Waldegrave: Obviously we considered carefully this large and important development. We took into account the views of the London borough of Newham, which approved the development, partly, I think, because there is a considerable amount of social housing proposed in it. In general the development fitted in with the London Docklands development strategy, and it carries forward

the development of Docklands, which is generally welcomed in London. That is why we did not think it necessary to call in the application.

Urban Development Corporation

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received relating to his plans for the establishing of mini urban development corporations; and whether the urban areas such as those on Humberside will be eligible for designation.

Mr. Ridley: I have not yet decided which areas should be designated.

Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the designation of at least part of Humberside as a mini urban development corporation would go some way towards rejuvenating what is in essence one of the last great estuaries in Europe? Would not his agreement to this go a long way towards establishing the point that the Government are interested in the smaller urban areas, which are equally important as large ones? Does not he further agree that a better decision might be reached if the survey of derelict land was not six years out of date?

Mr. Ridley: I cannot announce any decisions about mini UDCs today, but I can tell my hon. Friend that Hull is receiving £5 million under the urban programme this year. To date 10 urban development grant projects have been approved, leading to a total investment of £16 million. My hon. Friend mentioned derelict land. Humberside should get £2·5 million in derelict land grants during this year. We recognise its problems, and it is getting a good share of the grants that are available.

Mr. Steen: While it is clear that urban development corporations and mini urban development corporations will improve the physical fabric of inner urban areas, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government need to do more to involve the people living in these areas in the regeneration process? Many of my hon. Friends believe that only by involving the people in helping themselves will the urban environment be regenerated.

Mr. Ridley: I have a great deal in common with my hon. Friend on that point. I agree with him. He will be aware of the other instruments that we are using—CATS, the task forces and the many activities under the urban programme — in support of the policy that he and I support. I invite him to go to one or two of the new urban development corporations to see the extent to which the local people who run those UDCs are involving the local community in their very successful activities.

Mr. Boyes: Is it not a fact that the CBI, at its November conference, warned that the Government's inner-city initiatives would fail if they bypassed local councils? Is it not a fact also that urban development corporations and mini urban development corporations are designed to do exactly that?

Mr. Ridley: I put the problems of inner cities higher than the susceptibilities of councils. It may be necessary to bypass councils where they are the problem rather than the solution, but it is more important to help the areas and the people who live in them than to accept the susceptibilities of councils.

National Rivers Authority

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision on the size and scope of the National Rivers Authority.

Mr. Ridley: The period for comments on the consultation paper on the National Rivers Authority has now ended. I expect to make a further announcement on its shape and operations this month.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that typically helpful reply. However, does he accept that it is important that water authorities restructure themselves as early as possible prior to privatisation? Therefore, it would be helpful to them to receive a comprehensive response when my right hon. Friend makes his announcement.

Mr. Ridley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I want to press on with this very quickly, which is why I hope to give the Government's response before the end of the month. It is very important that we should engage the water authorities in active preparations from the beginning of next year. I hope that the Bill will soon be operating, to enable them to co-operate with us.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Secretary of State accept that he faces a predicament on the staffing of the National Rivers Authority, when the water authority chairmen have told him that he needs 20,000 people, not 2,000 people, if the water industry is to be properly regulated?

Mr. Ridley: I must say that the water authorities have different views about whether they think the physical functions for which the NRA will be responsible should be done by the NRA, the water authorities or contracted out. There are three options, and that is the crucial matter that has to be resolved in my response. Estimates of an enormously bureaucratic NRA are totally wide of the mark. We seek to have the minimum body consistent with its responsibilities, which will be very heavy to discharge.

Housing Investment Programme

Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why his invitation to local authorities to bid for extra housing investment programme allocations in 1987–88 permits the purchase of temporary hostels for the homeless but excludes bids for the purchase of permanent homes for them; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: Local authorities' first priority must be to get existing stock into use, for both long-term and short-term use, before they start acquiring more. Meanwhile, it must be right to get families in particular out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation and into better short-stay housing.

Mr. McFall: With £800 million underspent on local authorities' capital expenditure this year, how can the Secretary of State justify a further cut in expenditure next year for housing capital allocations? How is it that on the very day that the recent Autumn Statement was published we had the spectacle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer announcing increased provision for housing investment next year, while the Secretary of State announced reductions in housing capital allocation for next year?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member should note that capital allocations decline in importance every year. Over

half the spending power of housing authorities comes from receipts. Although allocations will be 6 per cent. lower next year, gross spending will be 4 per cent. higher.

Mr. Jack: On behalf of the people of Fylde I thank my hon. Friend for the additional moneys that I understand he will provide to help local authorities which have a particular burden because of Parkinson frame houses and similar housing problems in this financial year. Does he have plans for a similar helpful response, should that problem recur in the next financial year?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is certainly a high priority of my right hon. Friend's Department to get this problem out of the way once and for all. If it is possible to make additional allocations within the constraints that we have we shall make them, as we have in the past.

Nirex

Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next hopes to meet the chairman of Nirex; and what matters will be discussed.

Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of Nirex; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Ridley: I have discussions with the chairman of Nirex from time to time, but I have at present no plans to meet him.

Dr. Thomas: Does the Minister recall that in the public presentation to hon. Members the chairman of Nirex and his colleagues explained that public acceptability was one of the criteria for a drilling programme? Will the Minister accept that there is no public acceptability in Scotland or Wales, which are the main targets for the current drilling programme? Will he therefore announce to the House today, in the way that he announced for England on 1 May, that the Nirex drilling programme will not proceed?

Mr. Ridley: My estimation is that public acceptability is about the same throughout the United Kingdom, but I would not like to comment on any locality. I would prefer the hon. Gentleman to make his representations to the board members of Nirex, because they are carrying out the consultation.

Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that the document published by Nirex caused great alarm to many people, especially the constituents of Southport, and that action groups are now being formed? Will he ensure, when he speaks to the chairman of Nirex, that he emphasises that consultation beforehand might have helped?

Mr. Ridley: I am sure the hon. Gentleman, with his level-headed responsibility, will do his best to reassure his constituents. The consultation document has been published. I cannot see how he can call for consultation on a consultation document.

Sir Michael Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the chairman of Nirex that it is greatly appreciated that he is fulfilling his undertaking as quickly as possible to consult my constituents and other hon. Members' constituents in north Yorkshire about their strong, valid objections to deposits being made in that region? Furthermore, will he assure me that the intention not to deposit such wastes in a national park will hold equally true for the coastal waters off national parks?

Mr. Ridley: I sometimes think that it would be best if we had 650 supplementary questions on this matter, and then we would all be back where we started.

Mr. Cryer: Does not the controversy surrounding the disposal of radioactive waste demonstrate the Government's foolishness in embarking on yet a further nuclear power station construction programme at a cost of £2 billion? Would it not be more sensible if the Secretary of State got hold of the Secretary of State for Energy and told him what a lunatic idea it is, and got hold of the Prime Minister and got her to offer a site in Dulwich for the nuclear waste that already exists?

Mr. Ridley: I must introduce the hon. Gentleman to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who basically support the disposal of nuclear waste and the programme at Sellafield and elsewhere. I should be delighted to introduce the hon. Members to each other.

Sir Ian Lloyd: Has my right hon. Friend by any chance seen the quite deplorable advertisement in today's Daily Telegraph by an organisation called Greenpeace? It implies that anyone who disagrees with the Government's radioactive waste discharge policy should be entitled to block the discharge, regardless of the consequences at Sellafield. Does he agree that it is quite impossible for any organised, civilised society to proceed on the basis that a bunch of anarchists, who have no regard for either the complexity of the issues with which they are dealing or the consequences of their policy, should decide our nuclear policy?

Mr. Ridley: I regret that I have not seen the advertisement. Perhaps I should say that I am glad I have not seen it, in view of what my hon. Friend said about it.

Empty Residential Property

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation which obliges public or private owners of empty residential property to accept proposals for its use presented by housing associations, community groups or groups of people in housing need.

Mr. Waldegrave: No, but we are encouraging better use of the existing housing stock in the private sector by our proposals for deregulation in the Housing Bill and in the public sector by allocating resources through Estate Action, the housing associations programme and, more recently, the extra £25 million, which we are targeting on homelessness.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister look carefully at the Empty Property and Community Aid Bill, which was launched and sponsored by Shelter, IYSH, the empty property unit, and the empty property campaign just a week ago? Will he seriously consider whether we could amend the Housing Bill during its passage through the House to allow some of the empty property in private and public use to be used for short-term purposes to alleviate existing massive homelessness?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure that all hon. Members will support the intention behind the Bill. I shall certainly look closely at the provisions of the Bill. Some of them do not seem to be practicable, but others may be possible.

Mr. Maples: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are about as many empty properties as homeless families in London? Will he consider encouraging, or perhaps even compelling, local authorities to sell empty properties to people who are on their waiting lists if such properties have been empty for more than, say, six months?

Mr. Waldegrave: There is an element of compulsion in the Bill to which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred. My hon. Friend mentioned the unacceptably high number of empty properties. There are bound to be some, but it is accurate to say that it is an unacceptably high number of empty properties. At the moment we are still proceeding by means of carrots rather than sticks. That is why we have been offering more allocations to local authorities to get many homes at least back into temporary use. We shall have to consider ideas of the more draconian kind that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Shared Ownership

Mr. John Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific encouragement he is proposing to give to housing associations, building societies and other financial institutions to develop shared ownership schemes particularly in the Greater London area; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: The provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 1986, designed to make it easier for shared ownership to be entirely privately financed, have just been laid before the House. We take every opportunity to promote shared ownership schemes.

Mr. Hunt: I welcome that reply. Is my hon. Friend aware that for young people in my constituency such a scheme offers the only real chance that many of them will ever have of getting their foot on the home ownership ladder? Therefore, will he try to instil a greater sense of urgency and priority into the agencies to which the Government are looking to provide such schemes?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with the spirit of what my hon. Friend said. To be fair, local authorities and housing associations have made considerable use of the shared ownership route in recent years. On the private sector, I pay tribute to the main building society that has been involved, the Halifax. It has been trying to develop schemes. We could do with many more schemes from the private sector.

Sir George Young: In view of the buoyancy of house prices in London, will my hon. Friend reconsider the house price limits that apply to shared ownership schemes and see whether local authority, do-it-yourself shared ownership has been accidentally precluded by the recently published Housing Bill?

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's question. I draw attention to the new scheme that is being tried out in Tower Hamlets, where the local authority and private developers are putting together self-build schemes. They have rather the same effect and are very interesting.

Housing Investment Programme

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the percentage reduction in the housing investment programme allocation for 1988–89.

Mr. Waldegrave: As local authority spending power from capital receipts continues to increase, capital allocations decline in importance. So, while total housing investment programme allocations for 1988–89 will be 6 per cent. lower than for 1987–88, gross provision for local authorities housing capital expenditure will be increased by 4 per cent. to £3,048 million.

Mrs Mahon: Is the Minister aware that in my local authority area £80 million of capital investment is needed to put council housing back into good repair and that, because the Government have stopped improvement grants, we are in danger of having to pull down very good private stoke?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Lady is quite wrong to say that we have stopped improvement grants. In real terms, the value and number of improvement grants has increased many times since we came to power in 1979. I emphasise that receipts can be capitalised and used for repairs by local authorities, and local authorities should do that.

Mr. Hind: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the houses built in new towns and in the 1950s and 1960s are in relatively poor condition? That is especially true in Skelmersdale new town. Will my hon. Friend put his mind to improving the housing improvement investment programme in that area — specifically for West Lancashire district council?

Mr. Waldegrave: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but he will understand that there are a number of similar claims on the programme.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that the answer that he gave a few moments ago does not address the problem? Many local authorities cannot give improvement grants or, indeed, accept applications for improvement grants, with the result that many northern terraced houses are decaying and becoming derelict. In the long run that will cost more, because they will have to be pulled down. Even allowing for the extra allocation to which he referred, and taking capital receipts and the housing investment programme allocation into account, is it not time that more money was made available? Should we not allow more capital receipts to be spent to try to solve the problem?

Mr. Waldegrave: On repairs, there is no limit on the spending of capital receipts. More is now being spent than was the case. For example, the development of enveloping schemes, which are relevant to constituencies such as the hon. Gentleman's, has come on apace in recent years.

Urban Development Corporations

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the locations of the first mini urban development corporations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr Bevan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many mini urban development corporations he proposes to create; and when he will announce the location of the first.

Mr. Trippier: I refer my hon. Friends to the reply given by my right hon. Friend earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran).

Mr. Bowis: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I express the hope that the announcement will be made soon and that when it comes it will include many parts of the country—not just inner cities but other urban areas? That should be welcomed by local authorities of all political persuasions throughout the country because of the success of the development corporations to date.

Mr. Trippier: There is no harm in saying that we have looked not just at the inner cities but at the inner urban areas catalogued in the 57 programme authorities that are our principal responsibilities at the Department of the Environment. I confirm what I said last week, that the announcement will be made before the end of the year.

Mr. Bevan: When he considers these matters, will my hon. Friend consider the participation, not just of the communities and the people in them, but of the smaller firms and institutions, in a phoenix-style partnerships?

Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend's point about phoenix-style partnerships is valid. We have been approached with applications for urban regeneration grant and urban development grant and for a number of our other grant regimes. The URG and UDG have acted in a catalytic role to attract private developers to make applications to the Department for those grant regimes. Certainly I have no doubt that the grants will play an effective part in the existing UDCs and in the mini UDCs yet to be announced.

County Structure Plans (Housing)

Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy, when the number of houses actually built in a given area represents a substantial increase in the projected figures for that area in the existing county structure plan, to take this into account in his assessment of any structure plan review emanating from the relevant county; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: It is already my right hon. Friend's policy, when considering proposals for housing provision in submitted alterations to county structure plans, to take account of all relevant factors, including past building rates, before deciding whether to approve or modify the proposed figures.

Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he recognise that some of the figures for parts of the county of Dorset, especially the south-east, have been swollen and distorted by appeals? Will my hon. Friend reconfirm his commitment to the green belt, and will he confirm that it is not the Government's policy to scatter new towns over areas such as Dorset? In passing, will my hon. Friend welcome the speech by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales in which he referred to the tyranny of developers? That feeling is well understood by many of my constituents.

Mr. Waldergrave: I unequivocally reaffirm the Government's commitment to the green belt. However, I believe that my hon. Friend will recognise that some of the


decisions taken in his area have been welcomed. I repeat that existing figures will be taken into account in the future

run of developments. I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend about the interesting and, I believe, positive speech, by the Prince of Wales.

Firearms White Paper

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's proposed new controls on firearms. Those are described in the White Paper entitled "Firearms Act 1968: Proposals for Reform" that has been published today.
The House will recall that, in a debate on 26 October, I outlined the main conclusions of our review of firearms controls. Both before and since the debate there have been a number of other fatal incidents involving the use of guns. This reinforces us in the belief that it is time to strengthen the controls.
The law cannot guarantee against criminal behaviour, nor can it protect us against the individual who, having complied with all the requirements, loses control in a fit of madness. But we can seek to reduce the risk. A substantial shift is needed in the balance which has to be struck between safeguarding the public at large and protecting the interests of legitimate gun users.
The main responsibility of Government must be to secure, as far as possible, the safety of the public from the irresponsible or criminal use of firearms. But we must also take account of those who regularly use guns in a safe and responsible way in the course of their work or chosen sport. We have sought to accommodate the needs and interests of the legitimate shooting community wherever possible, providing this does not compromise our fundamental concern to give adequate protection to the community at large. Those who disagree, who would seek to remove entirely from private hands a wide range of firearms, misunderstand the nature of the problem. Certainly there are some types of especially dangerous weapon that we cannot allow the private individual to possess, and I have taken steps to prohibit more of those. But beyond that it would be wrong to deprive people— the farmer, sportsman, target shooter — of their weapons. Rather, we must ensure that they are subject to a degree of control and scrutiny that offers a real safeguard against abuse.
Let me briefly summarise our proposals. We intend to bring within the prohibited category full-bore, self-loading rifles; burst fire weapons; and short-barrelled, self-loading or pump action shotguns. Those are weapons that, for the most part, have no legitimate sporting use and which possess a rate of fire and a magazine capacity which make them especially lethal. We shall prohibit the movement of a firearm or shotgun into a less strictly controlled category by means of conversion. Pump action and self-loading shotguns, of normal length, which have a greater fire capability than traditional shotguns, are to be brought under the same controls as now exist for rifles and pistols under section 1 of the 1968 Act.
On penalties, the Criminal Justice Bill increases the maximum penalty for carrying firearms in the furtherance of crime to life imprisonment; and raises the maximum for being in possession of a shotgun without a certificate, in line with parallel firearms offences.
We shall be arranging a firearms amnesty to provide for illegally held or unwanted firearms to be taken out of circulation. There is to be a statutory safekeeping requirement for shotguns. We shall close the gap in controls whereby visitors to Great Britain may purchase

and use shotguns without a certificate. We have given considerable further thought to the question of further controls over traditional shotguns, that is, those that will remain under section 2 controls. I have decided that they should remain in a separate category from rifles and pistols but that the safekeeping requirement on its own is not enough. At present a chief officer of police must grant a shotgun certificate unless he has reason to believe the applicant is prohibited by the Act from possessing a shotgun, or that to allow him to do so would endanger the public safety or peace. I propose to change the onus so that in future the chief officer will have to satisfy himself as far as possible that an applicant is not disqualified by these factors — and that will include the discretion to undertake inspections of security arrangements.
In addition, chief officers will be able to refuse to issue or renew a certificate where they are satisfied that an applicant does not have a good reason for possessing or acquiring a shotgun. We need to take this precaution against the danger of a steady build-up of shotgun holding without any sporting or professional justification. But we intend that these justifications should be widely and reasonably drawn. In most cases the reason for holding a shotgun will be readily apparent and inquiries will not be necessary as a matter of routine. But where it is not, the scope will exist, in a way that it does not now, for the police to make further inquiries. The onus will be on the chief officer, and there will be a right of appeal to the Crown court against refusal of a certificate.
I also propose that all shotguns should be listed on the certificate by a serial number or description. It is not: sensible that the police should have no precise information on the number and type of shotguns which are properly held in their force area. Finally, anyone seeking to purchase shotgun ammunition will in future need to produce a valid certificate in order to do so, and the more lethal types of shotgun cartridge will be subject to stricter control.
The White Paper also outlines our proposals in respect of gun clubs, firearms dealers and a number of other matters. We intend to strengthen the existing approval scheme for gun clubs and put it on a new statutory footing. This is important not least because membership of such a club is often a consideration in deciding whether a firearms certificate should be issued. We intend that the status of firearms dealer will in future be confined to those who can establish that dealing in firearms is a substantial commercial or business activity. Dealers will be required to maintain detailed records of transactions for a substantial time to help police in tracing illegally held firearms.
Miscellaneous proposals include the power to require a firearm or shotgun certificate to bear a photograph; the categorisation of stun guns as prohibited weapons; the regularisation of the position of museums which hold collections of firearms; and better control over the movements of firearms from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
The White Paper is the result of a careful and detailed scrutiny of the current controls. It takes account of consultations that we have had with a wide range of interested bodies. We have brought forward the White Paper in advance of the Bill in order to give all concerned, and especially legitimate shooters, a further opportunity to assimilate and comment on our proposals. The main proposals will stand, but when it comes to legislation we


will continue to listen carefully to detailed comment, because we want this to be a measure which will last for at least 15 to 20 years, for the good reason that its substance is sound.
In all, the proposals that we are putting forward offer a tighter system of control, with more accountability for those who buy, possess or deal in firearms or shotguns. They will help the police to maintain effective control over the possession and movement of firearms. They will place some additional burdens and restrictions on the legitimate shooting community, but I have tried to keep these to a minimum and I am confident that they will be accepted by sensible shooters as reasonable and justified.
All the measures are clearly focused on our central aim of ensuring effective control over potentially lethal weapons. They are a small price to pay for safeguarding the community as a whole. I shall introduce a Bill putting them into effect within the next few weeks, and I believe that the Bill will have the overwhelming support of this House.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: Is the Home Secretary aware that the Opposition welcome his statement and the White paper on which it is based? Perhaps that is not altogether a complete surprise to him, since he has adopted so many of the proposals that we made in the debate that we initiated on 26 October. I propose to list some of them for the benefit of Conservative Members.
In that debate we called exactly for what the Home Secretary now describes as a substantial shift in the balance struck between safeguarding the public and protecting the legitimate user. In that debate we called for, and today I welcome, the prohibition of the ownership and sale of self-loading and pump action rifles and short-barrelled, smooth bore guns. We called for, and I welcome, the prohibition of the sale of burst fire weapons and stun guns. In that debate we called for, and I welcome today, an increase in the obligation which is placed on the owners of shotguns to store their weapons securely. Indeed, is the Home Secretary aware that we support the general and substantial extensions in shotgun control which he now recommends?
The Home Secretary's requirement that every shotgun should be individually identified on a certificate by serial number or by description means that the Government have accepted the need for the specific and individual certification of such guns. We proposed that during the debate on this subject five weeks ago and we welcome the Home Secretary's adoption of that policy.
But during that debate we also called for what I described as a change in the onus of proof. That appears today in the Home Secretary's White Paper, in different language, as the shifting of the balance of control. The language is unimportant. The intention and the change in policy is important. It is much to be welcomed and is welcomed by us.
In paragraph 25 of the White Paper the Home Secretary says that the chief police officer
will in future be able to refuse … a shotgun certificate where he is satisfied that the applicant does not have a good reason for having a shotgun".
In the debate on 26 October, at column 67 of Hansard, the Under-Secretary explicitly rejected the "good reason" requirement and criterion. Will the Home Secretary accept

our congratulations on the good sense of his conversion to the idea that anyone who possesses a shotgun must, if necessary, demonstrate his or her good reason for doing so.
Indeed, in only one major particular has the Home Secretary failed to support the proposals that we made on 26 October. There is nothing in the White Paper or in his proposals about the prohibition of, reduction in, or control of mail order sales. Mail order sales represent the one real remaining loophole, the one real opportunity, to evade the tighter controls that the Home Secretary now proposes, which we have advocated and which we support. Why has he not included a provision on mail order sales? Having stood up as bravely as he has to the gun lobby, I should have hoped that he would stand up to the mail order lobby as well. That is the only omission from a generally welcome document and I hope that the Home Secretary will accept our assurance that we shall support him when he brings it to the House in legislative form at the first and earliest opportunity.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman gives an amazing account of history. When he lists the things that he called for on 26 October, he omits to state that I had already said that most of them were our policy beforehand. He was fairly safe in calling for them as I had already said that the great majority of them, which he has carefully listed again today, were our policy.
But there is a difference of approach between us. Throughout, in his speeches and in print, the right hon. Gentleman has been pressing me to rush into some form of emergency legislation. He has been accusing me of protracted negotiations with the gun lobby, but we have been trying to consult and to get the detail as right as we can. We are now entering another phase before we lay a Bill before the House — I hope to do that before Christmas—during which comment will be able to be made on matters of detail. On 26 October the right hon. Gentleman took a lofty, scornful line on shooters. He talked of prosperous adults hanging around country pubs, until he was brought up short by at least three of his hon. Friends who carefully explained that shooting was not confined to the middle, upper and rural classes. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has been busy rewriting history—

Mr. Hattersley: The reason.

Mr. Hurd: I am coming to that. We are not putting shotguns on the same basis as section 1 firearms as regards "good reason". The onus will be on the chief officers. I do not want the police or shooters to get involved in endless routine discussions about reason. We shall try in the Bill to set out what "good reason" can be. I want to be able to respond to the real concern of the police—not least in some of our cities—that people are beginning to own and store shotguns with no other reason than an argument about self-defence. We need some way of dealing with that without involving people in all the rigmarole that would follow from putting shotguns on a section 1 basis in the way that the right hon. Gentleman would like.
I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman has made his case about mail order. Although this point strays outside the subject of firearms — it covers martial arts weapons and so on—we intend to prohibit the sale of certain things. When we do, their purchase by mail order, which has been one of the main causes for complaint, will


have been ruled out anyway; but when it remains entirely legitimate to sell something, I cannot see why a particular technique of sale — such as mail order — should be excluded, while others are not.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to spell out to the House and the country what will happen to the firearms that will become prohibited when the legislation is enacted?

Mr. Hurd: That will be connected with the amnesty. First, there will be a period during which people can legitimately dispose of these weapons through the international market. After a certain stage, when the commencement order takes effect—if our proposals are passed — those weapons will become prohibited and should be handed in together with any others that people want to hand in under the proposed amnesty.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I give a broad welcome to the proposals in the White Paper. However, has the right hon. Gentleman borne fully in mind the widespread use of normal pump action shotguns for sporting purposes in the country? Will he confirm that police officers will not only scrutinise the safekeeping of shotguns but be willing and ready to give advice —especially to farmers — on the safekeeping of shotguns and how that can best be done? Will he ensure that application forms for shotgun certificates are clear, and clearer than they have been in the past, asking questions that are devised to produce the information needed by chief officers of the police?
Finally, will the Home Secretary give an undertaking that, although he has rejected controls on mail order sale for now, the Government will continue to keep mail order sales under close scrutiny—because many of us believe that that there are abuses of the mail order system?

Mr. Hurd: I am well aware — some of my hon. Friends have pointed it out to me—that pump action shotguns of the normal length are used, for example, in clay pigeon shooting. I want to make it clear that there is no question in my mind of putting those weapons in the prohibited category. They will be in the section 1 category, together with rifles and pistols. I would think—we can go into this matter in greater depth later — that clay pigeon shooting would be an acceptable reason under section 1 if other conditions were met.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that safekeeping needs further definition. Of course, the police in most forces are already willing to give guidance on safekeeping. We need to work out with representatives of the shooting community more precisely how safekeeping should be defined, and then to give guidance to the police on how it should be dealt with. On a related point, I am also conscious that we need to deal with the worry about the transport of shotguns in this category. A legal case has caused anxiety on that point, and I am anxious to remove that worry, because the transport of shotguns is necessary and one does not want an unnecessary restriction on it in reasonable circumstances. I have nothing to add to what I have already said about mail order. Of course we watch all these things, but I do not see the grounds on principle in which action against mail order in particular could be taken.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Bearing in mind that the police, with whom I have a connection,

would have preferred my right hon. Friend to do more, whereas the shooters that I represent in East Anglia would have preferred him to do less, I welcome the balance that he has struck. I welcome especially what the White Paper says about arrangements to tighten the movement of guns to Northern Ireland, about the photographs that are to appear on the certificates, and about the new power of the police to screen applicants and to refuse shotgun certificates to those who are not fit. Can my right hon. Friend say how he proposes to match the names on the shotgun certificates to the guns to which they apply unless there is a numbering system? On behalf of the shooters, may I ask him to give his view on the principle of confiscation without compensation?

Mr. Hurd: I am glad that my hon. Friend's sense of equilibrium has brought him to roughly the same position as mine. He asked about photographs. There is already in the Firearms Act 1968 a power that has never been used to require one photograph. We propose to ask for a power to require two photographs, but we need to work out more carefully than has so far been done with the shooting community and the police whether this can usefully be used with modern technology in order to improve security. However, I think that it is reasonable to have that power.
What we have in mind about details on the certificate is not what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) suggested on 26 October, that each weapon should have a separate certificate, now do we propose that there should be a limit on the number of guns on a certificate, but rather that each certificate should contain a description of the number of guns applied for and held. When ownership passes, that description should also pass. That is a reasonable start in acquiring the kind of knowledge that I think we need about the number of shotguns that are legally held.
My hon. Friend asked about compensation. This is a difficult question and we have spent a good deal of time on it. Over the years there have been many occasions on which the use of equipment that people own is rendered invalid. Therefore, its value is substantially reduced by Government action without compensation being paid. It would be difficult in principle and I think almost impossible in practice to work out a scheme for this. We must rely on the facts that people will have plenty of warning and that there is an international market. It is preferable that they should use those opportunities rather than that we should put together some scheme of compensation that would inevitably have more critics than friends.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House for brief questions. I think that I heard the Secretary of State say that there would be a debate in the near future.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I broadly welcome the Secretary of State's proposals. Does he agree that a matter of some considerable importance is the muzzle velocity at the time of exit? Has not the time come for us to look again at the definition of a firearm, especially bearing in mind that the muzzle velocity of some airguns and, indeed, some catapaults can be in excess of 100 miles an hour? They fire a metal projectile that will kill at up to 50 yards. Do we not need to look at that aspect of the matter?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman may be able to deploy that argument, but I prefer to confine myself to the scope of the 1968 Act and to maintaining the categories within it.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the responsible target and game shooting organisations are anxious to help the Home Secretary where he can prove that this measure will reduce crime? Does he accept that there is great resentment in the responsible shooting world because, despite requests, its members were not consulted before my right hon. Friend made his statement in September? Subsequently, their recommendations seem to have fallen on stony ground. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that the police think that it will take 330,000 more man hours to fulfil some of his wishes? Has he taken that into account relative to the cost of firearms certificates, and would not policemen be better used on the beat to prevent crime? In the interests of clay pigeon shooting, will my right hon. Friend carefully reconsider the matter of self-loading shotguns that are able to fire only three shots—two in a magazine — otherwise clay pigeon shooting will pay a heavy penalty?

Mr. Hurd: We have consulted widely; my hon. Friend was one of those who were consulted. At some points— I am referring particularly to paragraph 17 of the White Paper—we have modified our proposals because of the detailed comments that the shooting community has put forward. Of course, most of the police would like us to go further. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) said, they would like us to put all shotguns under section 1 provisions, as the Opposition has urged, but not least because of the problem of resources that my hon. Friend mentioned we have resisted that. In the next stage I shall be perfectly prepared to listen to further representations about pump action shotguns. In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), I set out the reason why we have reached our decision, which is an understandable and reasonable one.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: To save me time in discussions with constituents, will the Secretary of State explain the criteria in paragraph 40? What is meant by "properly constituted" and "fit and proper persons"? I have to meet my constituents soon, and I do not understand the paragraph.

Mr. Hurd: We shall have to refine and develop that matter—[Interruption.] That is reasonable; we have set out the principle in the White Paper. We shall have to discuss with the clubs and shooting community what the qualifications are for a firing range. The phrase "fit and proper person", as the right hon. Gentleman knows, already exists in legislation, so I do not foresee any particular difficulty in that regard. We shall have to flesh out the proposal about clubs in paragraph 40.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend say how this will affect the ordinary working life of the farmer going about his everyday business?

Mr. Hurd: The effect on the ordinary shotgun owner will be that the police will be able to check when his or her certificate is issued or renewed that he is keeping his shotgun safely. When his certificate expires, he will need to list on his next application form the gun that he holds

with serial numbers and/or a description. The police will then be able to ask him or her questions about reasons for holding a gun, if they feel doubtful about them. However, sport, profession and leisure activity will count as such good reasons. I do not think that, put like that, it is tyrannical or unreasonable.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Will the Secretary of State address the following three points? First and foremost, the cost of implementing this procedure will vastly increase the cost of a gun permit for the sportsman—probably by about 75 to 100 per cent. Secondly, does he agree that, unless police at each station have a specific role in dealing with the issuing of shotgun permits, his proposals are unlikely to work? The police will be required to devote a tremendous amount of time to this procedure, so that there will need to be an increase in establishment. Thirdly, does he agree that there will be a proliferation of clay pigeon clubs unless he lays down quite stringent regulations as to how they should be constituted?

Mr. Hurd: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. These proposals do not cover Northern Ireland. We have borne the cost of the proposals in mind when deciding how far we should go. They will result in an increase in fees for certificates. We shall reconvene the working group, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) knows, includes representatives of the shooting community, to work out what those should conveniently be. The reconvening of the working group is not dealt with in the White Paper, but I am glad to give that assurance. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said about clay pigeon clubs.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I again appeal for brief questions? We have a heavy Opposition day before us with two important debates. I will allow questions to continue for a further 15 minutes and then we must move on.

Miss Janet Fookes: Will my right hon. Friend consider the real possibility that, as his admirable proposals begin to bite, the irresponsible and criminal elements in society will find it more tempting to use weapons other than firearms? May we expect a complementary White Paper on offensive weapons generally and their greater control?

Mr. Hurd: We have covered my hon. Friend's point to a considerable extent in the proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill in respect of knives and martial arts weapons which may be offensive weapons.

Miss Fookes: And crossbows?

Mr. Hurd: I do not rule out action on crossbows. It is doubtful whether such action would fall within the scope of the Bill, but I do not rule out action in future if that appears sensible.

Mr. David Young: What will happen to illegally held weapons that are handed in during an amnesty or in other ways? In the past, they have been recycled back into the community.

Mr. Hurd: The working group considering the amnesty must consider that in some detail. I have made inquiries about what happened in 1968 and have been told that the great majority of weapons handed in during the amnesty were destroyed by the police. However, there was a special


arrangement for weapons of particular value. I do not know how carefully that was defined then, but I will look into the precedent set by the Labour Government to see whether that is the right arrangement to follow in future.

Mr. Derek Conway: My right hon. Friend's reasonable statement will be welcomed in Shropshire where game shooting particularly has crossed social and political barriers and is followed by the Labour chairman of the county council. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, once the legislation has passed through Parliament, chief constables will be advised to apply the new legislation promptly and fairly and not in the rather maverick fashion in which they applied the Firearms Act 1968?

Mr. Hurd: There will clearly have to be more detailed guidance. I have referred to the transport of shotguns, and that must be carefully considered.

Mr. John Cartwright: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement and particularly the firearms amnesty and the sensible safeguards for the storage of shotguns, control over their movements and the sale of ammunition, but will he think again about the problem of those who have lawfully and legally purchased weapons that are now to be on the prohibited list? Is he convinced that those who have legally bought such weapons will have a reasonable opportunity to recover the considerable sums that they have spent on them?

Mr. Hurd: They have time to make their arrangements. They are not in an entirely different position from, for example, the owner of industrial equipment that is outlawed or about to be outlawed or prohibited by factories and safety legislation. Indeed, their position is not dissimilar from those affected by environmental measures. Compensation is not normally paid in those circumstances.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents and I believe that his proposals strike a balance between protecting society and enabling the shooter to enjoy his sport? He will be aware that I gauge his proposals against the background of the massacre in Hungerford, which is in my constituency. In those terms, why has he decided not to limit the number of firearms that can be owned by any one person? He will be aware that Michael Ryan possessed no fewer than five firearms and several shotguns. It is clear that he used three of those weapons in that dreadful tragedy. If there were more control over weapons and he had possessed fewer weapons and less ammunition, I cannot help thinking that less damage would have been done to the population of Hungerford.

Mr. Hurd: I have read several times the admirable speech made by my hon. Friend on 26 October. The reason why we have not followed my hon. Friend's suggestion is that, having consulted the shooting community we were convincingly advised that in many shooting sports it is normal and perfectly reputable to have a wide range of weapons. It would be difficult to limit weapons on a certificate as my hon. Friend has suggested without trenching unreasonably on the exercise of those sports.

Mr. Ken Eastham: When the Home Secretary introduced the White Paper this afternoon he said that we must try to get this right because it will hold fast for the next 15 years or so. In view of that

comment, I examined that part of the document which summarises the present law on air weapons. There is great concern about air weapons because they cause millions of pounds' worth of damage to property. Windows have been broken, personal injury has been caused and people have lost eyes. Therefore, is it not appropriate now if we are to remould the legislation that we have a serious look at the position in respect of air weapons because people are grossly concerned about them?

Mr. Hurd: It is true that many firearms offences arise out of the misuse of air weapons. There is legislation on the statute book about the possession by the young of air weapons in public places. There is also legislation on the sale of those weapons. Most serious crime arising through the use of firearms does not involve air weapons. I would rather leave the proposals as they exist within the scope of the Firearms Act 1968.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I fully accept, following the two recent disastrous incidents, that it is essential that further tightening should take place. However, I am unhappy about paragraphs 33 and 47 in the White Paper. Paragraph 33 refers to foreigners who come here "to use" shotguns. Surely many people come to this country, including members of families who have shot all their lives. They may come to this country to borrow guns from family members and they use them. Will that be prohibited? On paragraph 47, I do not entirely agree with my right hon. Friend's view of compensation. People may own fairly antique shotguns. They are very valuable, but valuable only as antiques. People will receive no compensation for such weapons.

Mr. Hurd: I have answered the question about compensation. That point will certainly recur, but I have given the reasons why I believe that any compensation scheme would be difficult in principle and, however it was worked out, it would have more enemies than friends. In paragraphs 32 and 33 we are anxious to safeguard the position of visitors who come to this country to shoot or buy guns and then take them out of the country. I will consider the specific point about borrowing other people's guns.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Paragraph 21 of the White Paper refers to people satisfying the police that they have good reasons to own certain weapons. To borrow the Home Secretary's phrase, will he flesh that out? Some of us might believe that without guidelines the local constable may find it very difficult to establish what good reasons were.

Mr. Hurd: There must be guidelines. This is a statement of the existing law under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968. We are not proposing to change that law, but we propose to include new categories of weapons in it.

Mr. Barry Porter: Although I welcome the common sense reflected in the statement of the proposed legislation, I still have a slightly uneasy feeling about the mail order business, about which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has taken no action. I join the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) in suggesting that it is not too much to ask the Home Office to keep an objective and beady eye on that aspect of the trade to see whether any problems arise in future.

Mr. Hurd: I will certainly be beady.

Mr. Alistair Darling: Will the Home Secretary confirm that the intended legislation and the amnesty will apply in Scotland and in England and Wales? With regard to air guns, will he listen to representations about what are very dangerous firearms in the wrong hands, or has he set his face against that?

Mr. Hurd: The answer to the first question is "Yes." In reply to the second, I believe that the main problem with air weapons lies in the enforcement of the existing law.

Mr. Tom Sackville: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there are nearly 20,000 murders a year in the United States and that that is 10 times more per head of population than in this country? That cannot be entirely unconnected with the very high level of irresponsible gun ownership in that country. Does he agree that the aim now must be to avoid going down that road? In that respect, the firm and reasonable proposals that he has brought forward today will be very welcome.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has made a sound point which applies to guns held in the community and guns held and used by the police.

Mr. Tony Banks: I do not think that the White Paper goes nearly far enough to meet the present public concern about the possession and use of firearms. I want to join in the comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House and say that it is a pity that the Home Secretary has not included air weapons because, in the hands of the young, they can cause great damage to wildlife. Will the Home Secretary consider banning the importation and sale of replica post-1914 weapons? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will next Tuesday join in supporting my Bill which seeks to ban the sale of war toys.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman's question about airguns illustrates the point that I have just made that the problem is one of enforcing the existing law, including the possession and use of air weapons by the young, rather than of devising new laws. Legislation is already on the statute book which deals with replica weapons and it is satisfactory. It would not be sensible to get into the business of deciding which toys should be banned.

Mr. David Harris: Unlike the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), I agree with most of my hon. Friends that this package probably represents a fair balance between the obvious need to tighten up the legislation and the legitimate requirements of genuine shooters. Nevertheless, will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir. H. Monro)? Will he give an absolute assurance that he will carry out detailed and careful consultations with those legitimate shooting interests before the legislation is brought in? Will he also consider the burden that any legislation will inevitably place on our police force?

Mr. Hurd: The police have been one of the main urgers-forward on this front. I am glad that I shall meet the British Shooting Sports Council on 7 December to discuss the White Paper. We have already consulted 17 separate shooting organisations, but it is convenient that the BSSC exists so that we can carry forward that consultation. I have arranged for a further period during which we can listen to detailed comment, and we shall do so constructively.

Mr. Ron Brown: If the Government's proposals are to make sense, surely gun control must be fully enforced in Northern Ireland, bearing in mind that many of the paramilitary hold legally authorised weapons, as well as illegal weapons? Why are the Government shy of mentioning Northern Ireland, which is the crucial issue of the day?

Mr. Hurd: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman should address his questions to him.

Mr. Robin Squire: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proposals that he has announced today will have little adverse effect on legitimate shotgun owners anywhere? Will he further confirm whether, in discussions with his EEC counterparts, he has any proposals to tighten up the carrying of illegal weapons across Community frontiers?

Mr. Hurd: On my hon. Friend's second point, we shall resist the draft Commission directive which would make it virtually impossible to carry out the controls that I believe are necessary. On my hon. Friend's first point, I am sure that the House will accept that public confidence in the existing system of control has been roughly shaken this year. If shooters are to have a surer foundation on which to carry on their sports and professions, we need to progress beyond the present controls, otherwise the system will always be shaky and in question. I want a system in which people know exactly where they are and can carry on under it for 15 or 20 years.

Mr. John McAllion: The Home Secretary will know of the serious incident in Scotland last Saturday when a gas grenade was fired into a section of the crowd at the Celtic-Hibs football match in Edinburgh. He will also know that press reports in Scotland since Saturday have suggested that the weapon used might have been of a type issued by the United States army and which is available by mail order. The Home Secretary has already said that he does not rule out further action, but will he assure the House that in future it will not be possible for potentially lethal weapons of that or any other kind to be purchased by mail order and used indiscriminately in this country?

Mr. Hurd: I was in Edinburgh at the time and, therefore, know of that incident.[Interruption.]I was not the target. The point that the hon. Gentleman has raised is not within my jurisdiction and I do not know whether it has been established that that type of weapon was used or what its status will be. However, I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman is properly informed about that.

Mr. Michael Jack: As I understand it, the most often used weapon in crimes of violence is the sawn-off shotgun. Does my right hon. Friend feel that the balanced announcement that he made today will contribute to lessening the use of that type of weapon, which may be acquired through private treaty sales of second-hand weapons? Does he feel that his measures will cover that aspect of gun sales?

Mr. Hurd: It is because of that major mischief, which my hon. Friend has described accurately, that we are moving that category of weapon up from section 1 to the prohibited category.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Would it not be fairer if the full rigour of the law applied to shotguns,


bearing in mind that there have been incidents in which landowners have used both barrels against passing air balloons? Under paragraph 40, firing ranges will be approved by the Ministry of Defence. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the MoD provides targets of ordinary pattern, rather than the figures of people, advancing with a gun, which are provided at the moment and which suggest a more combative approach than gun clubs need or want?

Mr. Hurd: I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's second point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. On his first point, I have explained why I do not believe that it would be sensible to do what Opposition Members want and to put shotguns under section 1. That would be expensive and would add considerably to the aggravation of the measures. I do not think that any corresponding gain in security would be worth it.

Mr. Tim Devlin: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Was the hon. Gentleman here for the statement?

Mr. Devlin: No, not for the entire statement

Mr. Speaker: Well, in fairness we should move on.

St. Mary's Hospital, Manchester

Mr. Robert Litherland: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the closure of cots for premature babies at St. Mary's hospital, Manchester.
The hospital is to close five vital cots for premature babies because of the acute shortage of specialist nurses. I am informed that engineers will be called in to disconnect the oxygen suction and electricity supply to the life-support incubators before Christmas, leaving only 10 cots for the entire region.
Dr. Chiswick, the consultant in charge of the premature baby unit at St. Mary's hospital, has warned that that unprecedented action would mean that fewer babies could be saved. The conclusion is that the hospital will be forced to reject dying babies. That assessment has been confirmed by another top consultant, who claims that it is the death-knell for intensive care of babies and that more will certainly die.
Already, 50 per cent. of requests for the admission of babies are refused. Those babies are turned away and die unnecessarily because cots cannot be obtained anywhere. Current funding of the premature baby unit allows only for sufficient specialist nurses to maintain the reduced number of cots. The predicament facing the hospital is desperate.
I find it a most disturbing and unforgivable situation which allows premature babies to die when the means and the resources could be provided to allow them to live. Our society and the Government have sunk to a new low in medical care. I am ashamed that that should happen to babies in my constituency, or anywhere else. The House should be deeply concerned about these revelations. I beg to seek leave to move the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the closure of cots for premature babies at St. Mary's hospital, Manchester.
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House. However, I hope that he may have other methods of bringing the matter before the House.

Post Ofiice (Dispute)

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the breakdown in talks two hours ago between the Post Office and the Union of Communication Workers and the possibility of a national postal strike.
The matter is specific in that it relates entirely to the delivery of the Royal Mail and the working conditions under which the men and women who deliver it throughout the year are now forced to work. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has already intervened in the dispute in that he has instructed the Post Office that it must not concede more than a one-hour reduction in a 42-hour working week. No other working person works a 42-hour week — [HON. MEMBERS: "We do."] That one hour reduction would be financed from productivity deals which would be concluded between the union and the Post Office, so it will be seen immediately that the Secretary of State, by intervening—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must say why there must be an emergency debate on this matter.

Mr. Ewing: I am showing that the matter is specific. I appreciate your stricture, Mr. Speaker. The intervention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, giving instructions to the Post Office in relation to these discussions, is serious and specific.
The matter is important because 16 years ago, when we last had a national postal strike, there were serious consequences for industry, commerce and the public generally. At that time, private companies were allowed to deliver the mail. They charged a fee 10 times the cost of the postage stamp and when the strike was over they handed the Post Office thousands of items for which they had charged 10 times the cost of the postage, but which they had not delivered. They were then delivered by postmen returning to work on 11 March 1971, after that long nine-week strike.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has now had his time.

Mr. Ewing: The matter is urgent in that in some areas the strike has already commenced and the urgency is increased by the necessity for the House to have an opportunity to express its views before the strike becomes widespread.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the breakdown in talks between the Post Office and the Union of Communication Workers and the possibility of a national postage strike as a result.
Again, I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I cannot find that this matter meets the criteria laid down under the Standing Orders. Therefore, I cannot submit his his application to the House.

Later—

Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I revert to the question of the possibility of a postal strike?

Mr. Speaker: I have dealt with that matter. For reasons which I have already stated, I did not feel able to grant an emergency debate.

Mr. Benn: This is a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Whether there will be a postal strike is not a point of order. This takes time from the Opposition's two debates, in which there is great pressure from hon. Members to speak. The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian and he cannot claim a point of order when it would not be right for me to hear it.

Mr. Benn: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman may have one try, but that is all.

Mr. Benn: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I know the rules of the House perfectly well. You need not give your reasons for refusing my hon. Friend's request for an emergency debate. I do not question that. What I am saying is this.
The Post Office has been in the public service since 1666 because it a public interest. It is our oldest public industry. A dispute of this kind is not a matter solely between the Post Office management and the unions, although postal workers actually work a 48-hour week. The point is that the Secretary of State has intervened on behalf of Parliament—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. As I said to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), it will be necessary, and possible, to find other ways of bringing the matter before the House.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Neil Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today I have had a bit of a disappointment because I wanted to ask a supplementary question on question 13, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant). As you will appreciate, he was unfortunately not present. I understand that this is not the first time that this—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. Time presses. If I receive notification from an hon. Member that he will not be present — that is a courtesy which the House will appreciate—I do not call his name. No point of order can arise on this.

Mr. Hamilton: You called the hon. Gentleman's name, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you might consider appointing the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to investigate this matter because—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not help.

Scottish Grand Committee

Mr. Donald Dewar: Last night, for the second day running, Liberal Whips blocked the motion calling for a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh on Monday to discuss the important matter of education. Is it right that a single cry of "Object" is sufficient to scupper an important meeting when Standing Order No. 94(3) states that the question on the motion should be put forthwith and that to support an objection there must be 20 hon. Members, which the Liberals certainly could not muster, rising in their places? Did the fault lie with the Government, who had not bothered to make the motion exempted business?
Many of us are astonished by the Liberal decision. I understood that Liberal Members supported the principle of meeting in Edinburgh, but obviously commitment for them is no more than a matter of convenience or, specifically in this case, inconvenience. I notice that the Government have left the motion on today's Order Paper, below the line, which presumably means that the matter cannot be considered by the House tonight. The rumours are that the Government have now no intention to hold this debate before the House rises for Christmas.
Standing Order No. 94(3) states that a motion must be laid by a Minister of the Crown. Presumably the Government could lay such a motion, exempt it and insist on the meeting. If they refuse to do that, is there any way in which those interested in the proper discussion of Scottish business can advance this matter? It would be sad if the Liberal party's achievement was to leave parliamentarians as one of the few groups in Scotland who have not had a formal opportunity to debate the Government's misconceived, unpopular plans for the management of our schools.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that I need any help, but I shall listen.

Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that at least two Liberal Members in Scotland have constituencies close to Edinburgh? Can you inform the House whether they would find it difficult to find their way from their constituencies to Edinburgh for a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh on Monday?

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. No one should be surprised at this because it arose last year. We said that five working days' notice of meetings of this importance of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh were simply not enough—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Time presses in an important day. It will be legitimate for hon. Members who wish to comment on this matter to raise it in general in the debate later tonight. Nothing out of order occurred last night. It is perfectly in order for one objection to block such a motion if it is taken after 10 o'clock.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I genuinely seek your assistance in this. Scottish Members are worried about the way in which the Government inform us when these Committees will meet. Three weeks ago at Business Questions I asked that


we should have a Scottish Grand Committee to discuss the vital matter of education and the information came back subsequently with only five working days' notice. Although those of us who already have engagements in Scotland are prepared to cancel them to meet and discuss this vital issue, is there some way that you can ensure that information is forthcoming in advance to enable Scottish Members to attend these vital meetings?

Mr. Speaker: I have many responsibilities, but—

Mr. Kirkwood: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: No. The matter cannot be debated now. It is up to the Government to table a motion. I cannot allow a debate on this now.

Mr. Bruce Millan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Well, the right hon. Gentleman is a former Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Millan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can clarify one matter for us? Will you confirm that what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, was accurate and that if the Government had tabled the necessary motion to exempt the business, the matter could have been considered under Standing Order No. 94, in which case a single voice of objection would have been insufficient to block the motion? Government good faith and competence is involved in this.

Mr. Speaker: If the business had been exempted that would have been in order and it would equally be in order to table the motion again.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Coypus (Prohibition on Keeping) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Mink (Keeping) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd]

Telecommunications (Premium Services) (Regulation)

Mr. Terry Lewis: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a statutory regulatory body responsible for licensing telecommunication premium service providers: for regulating the content of material published; and for connected purposes.
In recent times, there has been a proliferation of premium services provided through the conduit of the public telephone system. They are provided by British Telecom and by a growing number of contract companies, many of which have been established specifically for the purpose of cashing in on an extremely lucrative venture. Like most ideas that generate large profits, with a minimum of effort, the introduction of premium services has attracted to the public telephone system a mixture of the unscrupulous, the greedy and the irresponsible. So fast has been the growth of those companies, and so comprehensive is the range of material that they promote, that the ability of the regulatory bodies to protect the public interest has fallen far short of what Parliament should expect.
It may surprise the House to learn that, for £100, anyone can obtain from the Department of Trade and Industry a licence to operate a premium line, and that British Telecom has no control over the use to which that line is put. BT's interest, therefore, is purely financial, for it shares the product of any call by private negotiation with the system provider.
The calls are now being charged at 38p a minute. The services range from the Talkabout line, operated by British Telecom only, through a variety of dating lines to competitions with prize money, the integrity of which is in considerable doubt. Talkabout has resulted in unsuspecting parents being landed with horrendous telephone bills, their children having been seduced by BT advertising into spending time on the domestic telephone. In some instances, bills of £500 to £1,000 have been run up.
The purpose of Talkabout is purely to link three or four callers for casual conversation. That has resulted in practices which could mildly be described as undesirable. Foul language is the norm, and there is some evidence in the Manchester area that Talkabout has even been used by the National Front as a recruiting medium. I myself have heard conversations on that line inciting racial hatred.
The whole range of BT premium services pose in their own way some threat to public well-being. The dating and related services could be, and probably are, a vehicle for sustaining a network of contacts for the purpose of prostitution, and the so-called adult entertainment lines could well be dangerous to the sexually immature. Indeed, so distasteful is one piece of adult line material that it is currently the subject of a police investigation. I have no doubt that that, and much of the rest of the output of the adult line service, is pornographic.
It is a pity that the existing regulatory bodies of British Telecom and the Department of Trade and Industry cannot, or will not, do anything about it. It would seem that needless public expense will need to be expended to secure a ruling from the courts.
The latest racket, if I may describe it thus, is the dial-a-doctor line. For about £10, a subscriber can call an anonymous qualified doctor — or so the advertising


claims—to seek medical advice. It seems to me wholly improper for anyone, even a doctor, to claim to be able to give competent medical advice to a complete stranger over the telephone. I know that the British Medical Association shares my view, and has made representations — as I have—to the Secretary of State for Social Services.
My final example of the worst excesses of premium services will, I believe, horrify the House. It exemplifies the greed of the service providers, and demonstrates the ease with which the public telephone service is being used to exploit our fellow citizens. Two or three weeks ago, my attention was drawn to a newspaper advertisement, not in the telephone entertainments column but in the "part-time jobs vacant" column. It was clearly aimed at the unemployed. The idea was that an unemployed person would telephone an ordinary line and receive instructions from the person at the other end. It was suggested that a good reading voice was essential and that, if the caller would make a tape and send it to an address in Stalybridge, in the north-west, he would probably earn £10 if the tape was accepted. The problem was that the recipient of the call passed the caller on to a premium line, thus bypassing the code of practice that the Department of Trade and Industry tells me is tight enough to save people from exploitation.
The line to which the caller is then connected is a 38p line. It is called the "Treasure Trail". Having been connected, at enormous expense, the caller is invited to send the tape to Nemo Ltd., of Stalybridge. I believe that that is merely a device to attract unsuspecting people on to the "Treasure Trail" line, which is good business for BT and for Nemo, but a rip-off for the caller. Such practices can only be described as shady, and are clearly devised to circumvent the already tenuous controls operated by BT.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to the unsatisfactory nature of the "Treasure Trail" competition itself. As far as I know, no audit is demanded by BT, the DTI or any of the watchdog bodies. There is no evidence that prize money is paid out, and there is no means by which the general public can know whether there are winners or losers. Because no stake money is passed over, I understand that there is no need to register the gains under any gaming and lotteries statute. That considerable

expense is involved cannot be denied, and that serves to reinforce my view that the creation of an independent statutory body with adequate powers is urgently needed.
At the instigation of OFTEL, the Association of Telephone Information and Entertainment Providers produced a code of practice for premium services. I believe that to be woefully inadequate. I am certain that I have demonstrated today that it has proved useless in the face of the ingenuity of those who seek to make a fast buck without scruple.
The services to which I have drawn the attention of the House are a catalogue of exploitation of the unwary, and —I repeat—are being connived at by BT. The sick, the lonely, children and the sexually inadequate have all become targets for such exploitation.
Because of the shortage of time available to me, I have had to curtail my remarks. I assure the House that the abuses to which I refer have, perforce, beeen only superficially covered, and are more widespread than I have been able to suggest. So far, the regulatory authorities have been powerless to act, while BT and the DTI have been unwilling to do so. It is therefore necessary for the House to respond on behalf of the people whom we represent, and to create an effective statutory body to regulate these servies to which I have referred. My Bill will provide the vehicle for that response.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Terry Lewis, Ms. Clare Short, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. George Howarth, Mr. Tony Lloyd, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Roger Stott, Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and Mr. David Young.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS (PREMIUM SERVICES) (REGULATION)

Mr. Terry Lewis accordingly presented a Bill to establish a statutory regulatory body responsible for licensing telecommunication premium service providers: for regulating the content of material published; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 February and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

Opposition Day

[6TH ALLOTTED DAY]

The Real Economy

Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the high level of real interest rates, the proposal to make large increases in electricity charges and the other burdens already inflicted, or to be imposed in the future, on British producers and exporters by Government policy; and calls upon the Government to reverse its priorities so as to put the real economy first.

Mr. Speaker: I announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Gould: Over the last eight years, the Labour party has had two major criticisms of the way in which the economy has been run. The first was that, for reasons of dogma and because of avoidable mistakes of policy, the economy was being run at a level below its true potential; as a consequence, massive resources of labour and capital have been needlessly wasted. The second criticism was that provision for the future strength and capacity of the economy was wholly inadequate.
The economic events of 1986, particularly towards the end of the year, showed all too well that the Government recognised the force of our first criticism, because they relaxed monetary policy, reduced the exchange rate, allowed public spending to increase and, not surprisingly, provided exactly the stimulus to the economy that we predicted such policies would produce. As they had run the economy at a very low speed, it was not surprising that they have not found it difficult to achieve the acceleration that we have seen over the last year.
The problem that we now face is that the force of our second criticism is not abated. Because that criticism remains, the short-lived boom is unsustainable. Indeed, if anything, the boom gives even greater weight to our criticism about inadequate investment for the future. If, at the top of the so-called boom, we are still investing 8 per cent. less in manufacturing industry than we were in 1979, and if the investment that we put into research and development, training and infrastructure is still appalling by international standards, what chance have we of making adequate preparation when all the forecasts are for a slowdown in growth?
We have been saved from the immediate consequences of these failures by the accident of North sea oil. Oil revenues and their benefits to the balance of payments have been used to cushion us from the harsh consequences of the loss of market share in the rest of the economy. If the oil were to last for ever, this would still be a foolish thing to have done. It would have been a mistake and would have meant falling into a trap which the Norwegians and the Dutch have managed to avoid. Since oil production and oil revenues have already passed their peak, the waste of that opportunity is nothing less than criminal negligence.
Of course, the Government will point out that some of those revenues have been invested in overseas assets. But that offers us nothing more than a future Tory Britain as a remittance economy, having lost its power to produce for itself and having to eke out a living on the back of a

wasting legacy. That failure to use the uncovenanted and unprecedented bonus of North sea oil to strengthen our industrial economy—the real economy in which people live, work, and make and sell real goods and services— is the main burden of our criticism of Government policy. That mistake has arisen because, unlike the Norwegians, the Dutch and others who have managed the benefits of major natural assets much better, we handed over to the financial establishment and to monetarist constraints the whole business of managing that great benefit to our economy.
Indeed, the point is wider. If we conduct the inquiry which has so often been pursued by people on both sides of the political divide and by outside commentators into why Britain has done badly over such a long period by comparison with our more successful rivals, while many other reasons have come and gone and many explanations have been offered and disproved, we find that the main reason is the continuing preoccupation of British policy making with the interests of those who hold assets, deal in money and make their living from shuffling around bits of paper and the consequent burden of the penalty suffered from that priority by those who live and work in the real economy.
That is the leitmotiv of British economic policy making. It goes back a long time. It is not a strictly party point that I make. The hangover of an imperial economy where we got used to living on assets and the return we could get from investments is perhaps over 100 years old. We fell out of the habit of making our living by manufacturing and selling things, and we still run the economy on those terms.
Japan, Germany and other more successful economies have a hard-headed appreciation of what is needed to give their industries a competitive edge to enable them to sell competitively and productively in the major international markets. On the other hand, we continue to run our economy in the interests of financial orthodoxy, heaping upon industry the interest and exchange rate burdens which make it so difficult for it to compete. No wonder, therefore, that it is constantly remarked by outside and foreign observers that in the British economy it is the financier and the accountant who rule over the engineer and the production manager.

Mr. David Howell: rose—

Mr. Gould: I shall give way later.
Time and again priority has been given to the gold standard, to the parity of the pound or to some arcane monetary measure. At one point, sterling M3 was the keystone in the arch of monetary policy. Who now remembers what sterling M3 was? Who even knows at what rate it is rising?

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: At 22 per cent.

Mr. Gould: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) says it is 22 per cent. I congratulate him; he is probably the only person on the Conservative side who has bothered to follow that figure.
Monetarism is essentially an extreme form of the bias in favour of the money economy at the expense of the real economy. It was a doctrine based on the view that all that Government had to do was set certain monetary targets which would have an immediate and beneficial effect on monetary aspects of the economy and would do no


damage to the real economy. We and the Government know from bitter experience—we are prepared to point it out, but they are unwilling to admit it—that the truth was the reverse of that prediction. The impact of monetary measures on the monetary aspects of the economy was diffuse, but they had an immediate and damaging effect on the real economy.
We went through the experience of 1980–81, with the tremendous loss of nearly one fifth of our industrial manufacturing capacity. There were huge falls in investment, employment and manufacturing output. There was a huge deterioration, from which we still suffer, in manufacturing trade. All of that we know, but in this debate we do not want to go over those admitted facts.
There is another important question. When such damage was being done to industry and to the real economy in the name of now discredited and esoteric economic theories, where was the Department of Trade and Industry? Where was the great Department whose responsibility it is to maintain and promote the health of industry and of the real economy? Why was no voice raised from the Tory Benches against the madness that was being implemented in the Government's name in the cause of monetarism? The fact that there were so many Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and that they came and went so quickly is in itself an indiction of how little attention was paid to their views. Whey did they stay silent, one after another, as that tremendous damage was done?
I remind the House that one fifth of manufacturing industry was wiped out as a consequence of that ridiculous monetarist ratchet, which set such tight monetary conditions, high interest rates and overvaluation of the exchange rate that huge portions of industry simply could not survive. Where was the voice from the Department which is responsible for protecting the interests of industry and of those who live and work in the real economy?

Mr. Kenneth Hind: The hon. Member talks about the lack of a voice from the Department of Trade and Industry over the past few years. How does he square that with the fact that in the past two years Skelmersdale in my constituency, a regional development assisted area, has let 2 million sq ft of empty factories, pump-primed by the Department of Trade and Industry? How does that fit in with his argument?

Mr. Gould: My response is that it is almost entirely irrelevant to the point I am making, but since the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) raises it, I ought to try to reconcile what he has said, which is no doubt true —anecdotal evidence is always useful—with the report presented this week which states that further cuts will be made in the regional aid programme. The Government have continually run that down, to the great disadvantage of the regional economy.
One Secretary of State after another has succumbed to the monetarist nonsense that only markets matter. That all sounds rather outdated in the aftermath of the stock market crash, but that view was taken and still prevails in the Department, and I am certain that we shall hear it again this evening. The only industrial policy the Department has is that there is no need to have an industrial policy. That might have been tolerable, although it would not have worked or been helpful, if the market place to which the Department of Trade and

Industry consigned industry had been at all congenial, but it had already sold the pass on the way in which the market place was to be influenced and defined. It was being influenced and defined not in the interests of manufacturing industry but in the interests of the financial establishment, which had got its hands on the levers of power, and in the interests of the money markets, which had persuaded the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they were all that mattered.
Nowhere is this point more important than on interest rates, which remain so much higher than most of our competitors — almost three times higher than in Germany. The consequence of excessively high interest rates, as no hon. Member can be unaware, because on this issue industry has been very forthright, is that burdens are imposed on industry which make it more difficult and expensive to borrow and invest, and operate as a major deterrent to the investment which is required. It is a tax on investment. Almost every commentator on the economy would recognise that we desperately need investment, and anything which deters that and acts as an disincentive is very much to be deplored. Nevertheless, we have very high interest rates, with all the consequent effects on exchange rates.
Interest rates are important in practical terms. The CBI, the Engineering Employers Federation and other industry representatives are very clear about what high interest rates mean to them. Interest rates are also significant for what they tell us about Government policy and priorities, because they fulfil many economic functions. First, they strike a balance between the interests of owners and users of money and between the interests of financial establishment and the real economy. Our high interest rates, which are much higher than elsewhere, show the Government's willingness again to give priority to those who own and sell money and the Government's disregard for the interests of those who need to use that money to invest in the real economy.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member refers to financial markets and the real economy. I come from the north-west, one of the most beautiful parts of the country. We are working like mad to develop our tourist attractions, which are among our biggest money earners. and are creating more jobs than any other sector. The hon. Member has left that out entirely, but that is just as much the real economy as anything else.

Mr. Gould: If the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) fully understood her local and regional economy she would know that high interest and exchange rates are extremely damaging to the tourism to which she is rightly attached. Therefore I make the point, for those who clearly do not understand it, that the real economy, while embracing manufacturing industry as an extremely important component, is not the same thing as manufacturing industry. It does not exclude the very valuable services provided and sold in international markets and markets at home. There is a distinction between the real economy, which makes and sells real goods and services, and the money economy, which is interested simply in maintaining the value of assets and earning a reward for the sale and use of money. That is the important distinction, and I am sorry that the hon. Lady has betrayed her ignorance in that way.
Interest rates, quite apart from striking a balance between the owners and users of money, also serve the


function in economic theory of settng the price we are prepared to pay to forgo current consumption to make future investment. If interest rates are set very high, that shows that we are reluctant to forgo current consumption and unwilling to make long-term future investment. The high interest rates that the Government have set—and on which, as far as I am aware, the Department of Trade and Industry has been notably silent for eight years—promote and encourage the very short-termism of which the Chancellor has occasionally been so critical.
High interest rates compel and signal, and are the instrument and symbol of, a preoccupation with the short term. The priority given to money making, rather than making goods and providing services, has given industry and economic policy its short-term perspective. After all, the specialisation of a company which produces a given product or sells a given service will lead to investment, machinery, innovation, new products and the development of a skilled work force—all necessary to improve the market for that real product or service. But if a company's identity is based largely on the making of money, it has very little commitment to long-term investment. Its expertise lies in identifying the specialist activities of others, from which it can make a quick return before passing on. That is why we have those great monuments to short-termism and unwillingness to invest —the cash mountains of GEC and conglomerates such as the Hanson Trust—and that is why in the modern economy the banks, asset-strippers and takeover merchants are making all the running. That is why their voice prevails in the CBI and we hear so little about the real interests of industry.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman has just been very disparaging about two great manufacturing companies. It is not good enough for someone who has probably had no experience of what he calls the real economy, and has never had any experience of running a business, to be so rude and disparaging about two companies which have probably done more for manufacturing than all of the Labour party's efforts in the past 80 years.

Mr. Gould: The intervention of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) does him more credit for his loyalty than his common sense, because the statement I made about GEC and the Hanson Trust has been made by people of all political persuasions and by virtually every economic commentator.
If high interest rates are the instrument or badge of short-termism, as I believe is indisputable, and it is clear that they are so damaging to our economic future, why do we have them? That is a very simple question, which I have asked on many occasions, and I have not yet had a proper answer.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: I am glad to give way, because when I raised this question a couple of weeks ago, the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) assured me that we need not have them and that they would be reduced. I am sorry to say that so far his prediction has not been borne out.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Although I have had little experience of the real economy, I have had 30 years' experience of short-termism. I earned my living as something of a foreign exchange dealer in that time. Although I agree with the main thrust of the academic case that the hon. Gentleman puts forward, which is, as he may remember, what I argued from 1979 to 1982, the trouble at this moment is that, with the American dollar almost in a state of free-fall, we could be faced at any time with an increase in American interest rates to try to cope with that situation. I have no doubt that the delay of a fortnight on my advice to cut interest rates further has been due to that fact. The worst thing that we could do is to cut interest rates tonight and have to put them up again next week in pursuit of rising American rates.

Mr. Gould: I fear that the hon. Gentleman's intervention takes me into realms of economic policy, into which I should dearly like to follow him, but they are beyond the scope of the debate. In a moment, I shall say a word about the need to cut interest rates and the impact on the exchange rate.
Let me return to the subject. Again, the Department of Trade and Industry has a certain responsibility in such matters. It is responsible for the well-being and general health and strength of British industry, yet it remains remarkably silent on such an extremely important matter.
Why do we have such high interest rates? Surely it is no longer the case—it may once have been—that we have high interest rates to control the money supply. No one believes that any longer, do they? No one worries about sterling M3 rising, as has rightly been said by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, at 22 per cent. a year. That is not a matter of any great concern to anybody. Indeed, all the evidence is that, in any case, high interest rates were notably ineffective in controlling the money supply. In some senses, they even stimulated more lending. When companies had liquidity problems, they sometimes made them borrow more. They have certainly done nothing to curtail consumer credit or asset inflation. There is no longer any monetary ground, one assumes, for having high interest rates.
Surely the only other reason—the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West raised a good point — is that high interest rates prop up the pound. The so-called strong currency requires interest rates that are nearly three times as high as those of competitor economies and 3 million unemployed to hold them where they are. It is hardly a strong currency if it needs that sort of support. At least interest rates are effective to prop up the pound. Nobody doubts that high interest rates keep the pound where it is at present.

Mr. John Maples: rose—

Mr. Gould: I shall not give way. I have frequently given way, and I intend to proceed.
Is it really the Government's policy to burden British industry and the economy with high interest rates, as has been suggested, to raise the parity of the pound against the dollar to $1·80? Where does it end? Does it end at $1·85, $2, or are we to return to the days in 1980 and 1981 when one fifth of British industry was wiped out? Have we learnt nothing?
Does the Minister not hear the cries of pain and alarm from the textile, engineering and chemicals industries? Does he not understand that, as the pound rises on the


back of high interest rates against the dollar, the future of British manufacturing and the future of billions of pounds' worth of exports to the American market are at stake? Does he not understand that, as the American market becomes closed to us, if we allow the measure to proceed, others who also find it more difficult to sell to the American market—for example, the Japanese, Germans, French, Italians, Taiwanese and Korens—will become yet more ferocious predators elsewhere in the international market, and will make it even more difficult for British industry to compete?
Is it really the Government's policy to raise interest rates or to keep them at their present excessively high levels, as the Chancellor said, to keep the rate against the deutschmark stable? Is that really what is required when we now import twice as many manufactured goods from Germany as we can sell to it, and when we are now on course for an annual deficit of £7·2 billion of manufactured trade as against the Germans this year, worth nearly 750,000 jobs in British industry?
The consequences for the exchange rate of the high interest rates with which the Government have saddled British industry are nothing more than a tax on exports and a subsidy to imports. What does the Department of Trade and Industry have to say on the matter? Where have been the arguments and statements in support of British industry? Where have been the Cabinet rows? Where is the voice raised to save British industry from such matters?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's analysis in response to the intervention that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) a moment ago. Do I correctly understand that the Opposition's policy is that we should reduce interest rates to go in for a competitive devaluation with the dollar at the moment? Does the hon. Gentleman understand the implications of that policy for raw materials costs in this country, among other matters? Does he not think that that policy smacks of short-termism—rather reckless short-termism—in the present financial circumstances?

Mr. Gould: Nothing in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention flows from what I have said. I shall be interested to hear his view on whether he thinks that it is a good idea to maintain interest rates at their present level, which are nearly three times higher than German rates, when the consequence is that the pound rises inexorably against the dollar and destroys the competitiveness of British industry. That is the question. If he wishes to comment on it, I shall be delighted to hear from him. I am more interested to hear what intervention he is making on any level—wherever—to ensure that the damage, which is predictable and well known in view of our experience, is averted.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend will make a valuable case about lowering interest rates to get unemployment down, to rescue the manufacturing base and do all the things that he wants to see done. He should not necessarily assume that lowering interest rates would result in a higher exchange rate for the pound. If sterling were much higher against other currencies such as the dollar, the deutschmark and everything else, we should not assume that that is a bad thing. The fact that the West German and Japanese economies have manageed to do

what they have done with surpluses of $120 billion between them at present is not due to their rates falling in relation to the dollar and the pound.

Mr. Gould: I agree with my hon. Friend. The position on interest rates and exchange rates is by no means a sufficient precondition for economic success. However, it is a necessary precondition. My hon. Friend mentioned the German performance. Of course, the real exchange rate as against the deutschmark has risen in this country since September last year, well into double figures. That is the situation. Again, British industry and all those who work in it and whose jobs depend on it should be well aware that a loss of competitiveness threatens jobs and output.

Sir Peter Tapsell: rose—

Mr. David Howell: rose—

Mr. Gould: I shall not give way. I shall proceed. I am now proceeding to a different point.
If the Minister and the Department of Trade and Industry are silent on interest and exchange rates, and have been silent for eight years, they have also been silent on electricity charges. Recently, the Government announced the introduction of quite unnecessary increases in electricity charges, amounting to 15 per cent. over the next two years. It is difficult to know which is the more absurd, the real reason for the increase or the one that the Government have given.

Mr. Edward Leigh: rose—

Mr. Gould: I shall not give way. I have only just begun on this point.
The Government have told us that they need to raise prices to finance the expansion of the capacity of electricity generation. For years past, the Government have used the electricity industry and indeed, other energy industries as milch cows — as sources of hidden forms of taxation revenue. If there were to be a case for investing large sums in future capacity, what happened to the money that was filched from consumers over all the years when the Government imposed quite unnecessary charges on domestic consumers?

Mr. Leigh: rose—

Mr. Gould: I shall not give way on this point.
The true reason for the Government raising electricity charges is, yet again, our old friend privatisation. They are basically fattening up an industry so that it can be made to look attractive to private buyers. What is now being privatised is the right to overcharge domestic and industrial electricity consumers, and to do so in perpetuity, just as industry and consumers have had to pay excessively for the privatisation of other industries.

Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: No, I will not.
What has the Department of Trade and Industry said about its failure to stimulate and encourage investment in research and development, infrastructure and training? These are not so much sins of commission as sins of omission. The burden imposed on industry by crumbling infrastructure can certainly not be ignored. Does the Minister pay no attention to the pleas that have been made for many years now by the CBI and the Engineering


Employers Federation? Or does he just block his ears and smile sweetly at the Chancellor? In a memo to the National Economic Development Corporation on 1 October this year, the CBI wrote:
If business is to have the infrastructure it needs to reduce its costs, cuts in public capital spending must be reversed.
Does the Minister endorse that position? Does he take the CBI's view of the need for that form of public spending? Has he told the Chancellor so? If he has, he has been notably ineffective in getting the message home.
What about research and development? As we all know, Britain's record is appallingly poor by international standards. The Minister may well have seen the recent article in the National InstituteEconomic Reviewwhich shows that in 1983 our industry-financed spending on research and development was less than half that of Germany, one fifth that of Japan and one eighth that of the United States. Of the 10 countries analysed, only Italy spent less per capita than the United Kingdom. The role of Government in the decline of research and development spending is crucial. The recent answer given by the Minister himself showed that the United Kingdom is the only one of the major seven countries to have experienced a decline in public funding of research and development.
The real burden on our economy is a Government who do not know or care. We have a Chancellor who can say, of a turnround in our manufactured trade since 1979 amounting to £13 billion-worth of goods, that it is neither here nor there. We have a Chancellor who, in the interests of developing a low-tech-no-tech economy, abolished capital allowances in 1983–84. We have a Department of Trade and Industry which has no sense of its own responsibilities but sits back complacently while British industry is again placed on the rack. We have a Department whose only idea of an industrial strategy is to encourage employers to return to Victorian practices which, as the Equal Opportunities Commission pointed out, will very unfairly disadvantage women workers and all those others in the labour market whose position needs protection. We have a Department that can publish a White Paper in which it talks about building business and boasts about a measure permitting "casinos to redeem cheques". That just about sums up the Government's industrial strategy, their futility and triviality and their lack of ability to get to grips with the real needs of British industry. If we are to face the future with confidence, we desperately need to remove that uncaring, unknowing irresponsible Government from the back of the real economy.
We need a proper industrial strategy that understands the needs of industry and provides it with an environment in which it can prosper and the help and encouragement to make the investment that we desperately need. We need a strategy that recognises the proper and crucial role of the Government as the provider of services and investment help, as a partner in the national enterprise and as an agency that makes up for the now admitted deficiencies of the market.

Sir William Clark: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: No, I will not.
We need a Government who are prepared to intervene in the interests of the real economy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no".] Oh, yes. I know that the very word "intervention" provokes all sorts of Pavlovian responses from Conservative Members.
We have had an interventionist Government all right. They have intervened consistently to hold up interest rates and to impose charges. They have intervened in foreign exchange and equity markets. They are always prepared to intervene in the interests of the money economy, but they are never prepared to take any action to help those who live and work in the real economy.
If we are to succeed, we need to follow the successful example of countries abroad, which understand the importance—

Mr. David Howell: Which ones?

Mr. Gould: The right hon. Gentleman asks me which ones. The clear answer is Japan, Germany, Italy, France, the United States—virtually any advanced economy that has done better than us in recent years. Those countries have done better because they realise the great value and importance of co-operation between Government and industry. Opposition Members are not alone in making that point. Increasingly, the leaders of British industry understand the importance of co-operation — that the Government can be their partner and an encouragement to them. However, they are increasingly aware that they are unlikely to get such help and encouragement from the present Government.
The next Labour Government will create such a partnership, not just in the interests of industry but in the interests of all those who make their living by working in factories, providing real goods and services and selling them into the international markets. That is where the wealth of the country lies. We should recognise the importance of the real economy and the disadvantages that we suffer if we give priority to the money economy. Those are the matters on which a proper industrial strategy rests, and that strategy will form the basis of the programme of the next Labour Government.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I was surprised to hear of the subject chosen for this debate, because it was first described to me as a debate on the burdens imposed by Government on industry. Until recently, that was a regular theme of this Government's policies in a number of areas, including my own Department of Trade and Industry.
Given the Labour party's past and the policies that it has advocated, it is strange to hear Labour Members talking about lifting Government burdens on industry. It is rather like hearing an orthodox rabbi make a speech on the safe consumption of pork. This is certainly a new subject for the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). The hon. Gentleman is, of course, a revisionist in the Labour party. He is trying to turn it in new directions and open up new horizons, which was no doubt the purpose of his speech. He has already begun to talk about share ownership and to refer in friendly terms to private enterprise. He is gently booed at party conferences for raising such subjects. Today he has given us a thoughtful, academic and at times, I thought, eccentric contribution.


He has tried to explain and rewrite a little the history of the past few years to prepare the ground for an analysis of what a future Labour Government would do. It is not policy yet. Various groups in the Labour party are embarking on a two-year voyage of discovery so that they can decide what they can say to give themselves an industrial policy for the next election.
The hon. Gentleman will have to start again. His rewriting of history was rather extraordinary. No doubt, from the Labour party's point of view it is important to explain the history of the past eight years and to explain why Labour lost its third successive election, especially as it lost because the electorate perceived that the economy was booming at the end of its years of criticism. The theory that the hon. Gentleman is putting out to his followers is that the economy picked up before the election because from 1986 onwards we began to follow Labour party policies and relax monetary controls and so on. The hon. Gentleman knows that the economy was in a very healthy state at the end of that process, when we were in fact being criticised for the very consistency of the policies for which the Government have been noted throughout our eight years of office.
The hon. Gentleman said that the boom was short-lived and went on to describe present problems. He still talks about relaxing monetary policy and lowering interest rates. He cited Germany and Japan as successful economies that we should seek to emulate. I would not have said that either presented a model of relaxed monetary policy to follow in the world economy. One has only to look at the pressure that they are under from the rest of the world at the moment. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who is independent, and always aggressive in all directions, bowled his hon. Friend's middle stump when he said that it was eccentric to claim that the industrial success of Germany and Japan depends above all else on Government decisions to reduce interest rates. Plainly, that is not the root cause of their success.
The worst thing—it demonstrates that the revision-ism is not yet complete—is that the analysis given by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) of the present state of British industry and the outlook for industry could have been written in 1979, 1980 or 1981. It is the kind of description that the Labour party gave of manufacturing industry and the economy when we went through a period of extremely dramatic change and economic difficulties. That analysis does not relate to the present situation.
The hon. Member for Dagenham has the new duty to shadow the Department of Trade and Industry. I wonder whether he ever has a look at the CBI's quarterly industrial trends survey. One of my hon. Friends has already asked whether he meets many managers in the manufacturing industry and the service economy. If he did so, he would know that, at present, confidence in the British industry is at its highest level. We are in a period when manufacturing output has been rising strongly and manufacturing employment has even started to go up again. Manufacturing investment is also doing well and is not dropping, as the hon. Member for Dagenham has claimed.
If the hon. Member for Dagenham believes that the present level of manufacturing investment is somehow affected by interest rates, he should turn to the back page of the last CBI quarterly survey. Leaders of industry were asked what factors were likely to limit capital expenditure

over the next 12 months. Of those who responded, 1 per cent. talked about the inability to raise external finance and 8 per cent. mentioned the cost of finance. Those were the only limitations mentioned against a background of rising investment in industry.

Mr. Gould: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised the question of manufacturing investment—I assume that is what he is talking about and we must be precise about that—will he tell us where that investment stands now, in relation to 1979? Is that investment rate higher or lower? Throughout: the Government's period of office, has investment ever been higher than the 1979 rate?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman knows that this type of exchange has been taking place across the Dispatch Box for the past eight years. The economy went into a serious recession for two years, but, since then, it has been steadily growing. Manufacturing investment is rising extremely strongly, yet the hon. Gentleman has implied that it is falling. The hon. Gentleman can no longer ask about manufacturing output, because we are about to rise above the peak reached in 1979. The 1979–1987 comparison was worn out in the previous Parliament and to make such a comparison is increasingly dangerous. Certainly the present situation does not support the hon. Gentleman's assertion that manufacturing investment is in decline— the truth is precisely the opposite.
The hon. Member for Dagenham referred to research and development. We all agree that that is something to which British industry should pay more attention. However, the level of expenditure on R and D in British industry is rising strongly—the hon. Gentleman should know that, because he has seen the latest figures. He also knows that the Government spend £4·5 billion on R and D of one kind or another to stimulate such work in this country. The hon. Gentleman may leap to his feet — those who lobby for R and D often do, and it is fair enough — and point out that that Government investment is lower than the percentage invested by some other countries. However, our contribution represents a higher percentage when compared to the contributions made by Germany and Japan — the hon. Gentleman's favoured nations and those which he regards as the models for our economic performance.
I find it a little rich for the Labour party to attack us on training, especially given my previous responsibilities. The Opposition say that we have not encouraged industry and the economy to pay enough attention to training. Certainly we need a better trained work force, but it is also true that industry is paying much greater attention to that training. Expenditure within industry for all training is rising rapidly. In the teeth of opposition from the Labour party, the Government have stimulated that growth enormously as a result of the policies of the DTI and the Manpower Services Commission. Such opposition is apparent whenever we try to stimulate the training of the intractable unemployed, the long-term unemployed and the young.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Can the Minister tell me why the only organisation in south Yorkshire that is skill-training people from school is the local authority? There are also a few people being trained at British Steel. The fact is that skill training has been taken away from areas such as south Yorkshire as a result of Government policy.

Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is referring to skillcentres, I am afraid that I do not know the present state of affairs regarding those centres. However, employers in south Yorkshire are expending money on training as they are elsewhere. The MSC is also expending money on training in south Yorkshire. The skillcentre may have closed down, but that represents only one aspect of the training policy.
The hon. Member for Dagenham also spoke of cuts in capital spending. I did not rise to ask him to specify what forms of capital spending he meant. Certainly, major capital programme spending has increased. We took over a roads programme that had been cut by the previous Labour Government. That programme was demoralised because of the Labour Government's constant concessions to the anti-road lobby of the National Union of Railwaymen. Expenditure on roads is now up by 30 per cent. in real terms compared to the level achieved by the previous Labour Government—and that expenditure is rising strongly. Hospitals expenditure has also risen after it had been cut by the previous Labour Government. The Opposition want us to build council house estates, and that represents the only source that they can find to back their continued allegation of cuts in capital spending.
The real economy, with which this motion is concerned, is now doing extremely well—it is doing better than it has for a generation. The outlook for industry is better than most managers can remember in their lifetime. We are well placed to withstand the buffeting of the international climate should that climate become more difficult. If things remain on course, we are well placed to continue to prosper, as we have one of the fastest rates of growth in the developed world. It is important to sustain that growth. When I consider the Opposition motion I welcome their apparent—I believe it has turned out to be passing—interest in the burdens and penalties that can be imposed, sometimes mistakenly, by Governments on those trying to manage British industry and expand our real economy.
If the hon. Member for Dagenham is truly engaged on a course of revisionism and is trying to plot a new course for his party he should devote his time to considering what burdens Government policies can impose on the real economy. He should contrast present achievements with the record achieved when his party was in power. Many of our activities have been spent removing from industry the daily burdens and penalties which were strongly enforced by the Labour Government.
Throughout his speech the hon. Member for Dagenham did not mention the word "inflation" — it still appears to be something which he regards as an irrelevance to managing the real economy. We have discussed peaks and we should remember that inflation reached a peak of 27 per cent. per annum in August 1975, under a Labour Government. That is a real burden on anyone trying to make a living in the sensible market place. The rate is now 4·5 per cent.

Mr. Gould: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I must persevere a little further before I give way.
The hon. Member for Dagenham did not mention taxation—because, again, the Labour party apparently does not regard that as any kind of burden on industry or management. However, the hon. Gentleman should go out

and talk to managers and consider the past effects of taxation on the real economy of the country. He should consider the effects that were suffered when the basic rate of income tax was 33 per cent. — it stood at that rate when we were elected. The present level of taxation is 27 per cent. and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said that we will reduce taxation to 25 per cent. as soon as we can prudently do so.
Under the Labour Government, the highest rate of personal taxation was 83 per cent. The taxation rate on investment income for individuals was at the ludicrous level of 98 per cent. — now it is 60 per cent. Under Labour — the party now interested in reducing the burden on business—corporation tax was 52 per cent.; we have reduced that level to 35 per cent.. The small companies rate of corporation tax has gone down from 42 per cent. to 27 per cent.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Gould: rose—

Mr. Clarke: It is no good interrupting me.
The Opposition have rushed here to rescue industry from higher electricity prices — I shall return to that matter shortly. I believe that the burdens I have outlined would be reimposed by the Labour party—we would be back to the situation before we won our first election.
The national insurance surcharge had a certain effect on industry's pay bills and its capacity to employ people —it was a tax on employment that we have abolished. We have restructured the rates of national insurance contributions for the lower-paid in comparison to the rates that existed when we took office. That restructuring has removed another disincentive to employment that the Labour party left behind. We have abolished three other taxes—investment income surcharge, development land tax and capital transfer tax on lifetime gifts. Their abolition has played a part in stimulating the investment about which the hon. Member for Dagenham claims to be concerned. We have reorganised the system of capital allowances, so that profit rather than tax efficiency is the driving force for investment.
The hon. Member for Dagenham did not mention pay. When Labour was in office, it sought to impose on industry its view on pay and pay structures. It sought to impose the pay structure that it thought each and every business should have and towards which each and every management should strive. I will not go over the long, appalling history of officials in the Department of Employment trying to impose ridiculous pay norms on businesses of every size across the country each year, so that no management could properly reward productivity and success and manage its business as it wanted. They wound up with "black lists" of companies which were struck from Government procurement if they dissatisfied the then Chief Secretary. That was a burden on industry that they were clinging to in 1979.
Talking about burdens, if, under the last Labour Government, a business which was unable to set its own wage rates, which was actually operating under this crushing burden of taxation and facing horrendous levels of inflation, wanted to adjust its prices in the market in which it was struggling for survival, the Government said that it needed the permission of the Price Commission, to which its proposals had to be submitted before it could respond to that market. If someone wanted to expand his business under the last Labour Government, actually


believed that he was successful and wanted to expand, he could not go and buy a site and develop a factory: he had to apply to the Minister for an industrial development certificate.
Hon. Members should go round the wastelands of the black country and Birmingham nowadays, where industrial development certificates were refused, year in, year out, by Labour Ministers who thought that they knew best where industrial development ought to be located, and see the levels of unemployment there.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Clarke: It is extraordinary effrontery on the part of the Opposition Front Bench to talk of burdens on business. Quite apart from the Government, their allies in the trade union movement were totally free from legal restraint. So if any industry struggled to improve its productivity, it was hindered by its inability to deal with trade unions which were buttressed by sweeping legal rights, unaccountable to their membership and used to getting their own way by confrontation before negotiation, usually with the assistance of a Minister if it looked as though they were not succeeding in obstructing the management.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: While the Minister is expressing concern about the viability of firms and taking some credit for the fact that the Government have removed a number of obstacles—he referred, for example, to reductions in corporation tax— will he be referring in the course of his speech to the difference between the number of bankruptcies in 1979 and the figure every year since his Government have been in power?

Mr. Clarke: The rate at which new businesses are being created is increasing. About one third of new businesses fail. If the number of new businesses rises, so will the number of failures. Nevertheless, the net growth of new businesses is rising strongly. We are seeing more start-ups nowadays than we have for many years.
I will turn from the history of the last Labour Government because I think that I have probably made my point. Beginning as the hon. Member for Dagenham did, by going over his account of history, it is an extraordinary change of circumstances for the Opposition to come along and criticise us for placing burdens on business, seizing, as far as I can see, on electricity prices. When they were in office, they imposed burdens on firms which prevented them from increasing productivity, raising their prices and setting their own wages; they crushed them with taxation and faced them with inflation when they tried to earn a living.

Mr. Gould: I am grateful to the Minister again. I am not at all surprised that he should seek to take refuge in events of a decade ago. None of that covers up what was, no doubt, an unintentional slip of the tongue when he referred to the peak of 1979. The fact that he concedes that point throws some doubt on his analysis of the experience of the 1970s. Surely the real point, the one that we are still waiting for him to answer, is what view he takes, as the Minister for the real economy, on questions such as interest rates, or the CBI's insistence that public capital spending cuts have to be reversed. Those are the burdens of which industry is currently complaining.

Mr. Clarke: I will turn from history, of course, as the hon. Gentleman invites me to do; but he made frequent references to 1979. He takes a slightly mandarin view of history, because we cannot talk about the period before 1979 and we cannot talk about the present. The year 1979 was the pivot of the hon. Gentleman's analysis.
The background of the hon. Gentleman's speech is not just that history, but also the fact that, at the last general election, the Labour party advocated to British business, which had to decide whether it should turn to Labour or not, the repeal of the trade union legislation, the setting by Government of minimum wages for employees, Government-directed capital investment on which the then shadow Chancellor waxed lyrical, higher taxation and the ending of nuclear power which would have put up industrial costs and reduced jobs in a number of industries.
It is quite astonishing that the hon. Gentleman should be talking as though, six months ago, he had fought on a platform that was intended to lift burdens from business and bring about an expansionist economy. The record that he must now improve on is very much better than the one before. Productivity is the key measure of how the economy has been able to perform under our stewardship compared with his.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Clarke:: I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
I just want again to point out that, in 1973–79, in a period of very close interventionism, which the hon. Gentleman conceded he still espoused, average productivity rose by 1 per cent. per annum for the whole economy and by 0·75 per cent. for manufacturing industry. But in 1979–87, taking the period that the hon. Gentleman likes, average productivity has risen 2 per cent. per annum for the whole economy and 4 per cent. per annum for manufacturing industry. It is that which has made us one of the most competitive economies in the 1980s and made us one of the least competitive economies in 1979.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept my sincere thanks for reminding the House how dreadful and how interventionist a Socialist Government can be? Will he explain to the House why the Government now propose to amend the Local Government Bill to allow local authorities to impose social clauses in their contracts and to interfere in exactly the same way that the Labour Government used to interfere? Does it not show that the present Government are arrogantly supposing that they will rule for ever and that they have completely forgotten the way in which those social clauses, with the encouragement of a Government of a different complexion, could be used again to the vast disadvantage of British industry?

Mr. Clarke: To divert ourselves just for a second to the clauses that my hon. and learned friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is steering through the House, and with which my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) disagrees in part, the clause about whose details he argues seeks to stop local authorities imposing political conditions on those companies which wish to tender for contracts with them. It is, in my hon. Friend's opinion, perhaps regrettable that there is a restatement there of the race relations legislation, which we are not, in any event,


proposing to repeal. But, as far as I can recall, we are not actually suggesting that the imposition of political patterns on contractors should be allowed. We are working in the general direction, at least he will concede, that he would wish.
Let me return to other burdens. There was one subject that I thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dagenham was going to raise and which I will just touch on briefly. If the hon. Gentleman really wishes to take the Labour party on this voyage of discovery into lifting the burdens and penalties on industry, as he says, he might reconsider the question of deregulation. To paraphrase what he said at one point, he knows perfectly well that deregulation is one of those things which still sets off a Pavlovian response in everybody on the Left wing of the Labour party, and, as far as I can see, across most of the Labour Front Bench as well. In the next debate, we shall probably hear the honourable Leader of the Opposition in a totally non-deregulating mood.
The logic of the Opposition motion and the logic of our activities is that Government burdens on industry need to be lifted. Proper standards of health and safety, proper commercial practice, basic minimum standards of employment law and other necessary things, must be imposed, but this must be done without wasting management's time or inhibiting its ability to manage, to the benefit of consumers and employees. We must, in particular, encourage small businesses and start-up entrepreneurs to devote the necessary time to their businesses rather than taking up this valuable time by giving them questionnaires to fill in. We have cut down the number of questionnaires that used to go out by about one third, and we have eased the detailed regulations of employment protection law on small businesses without detriment to anyone.
One thing that the hon. Gentleman might consider is having a look at the new procedures that we have set up right across Whitehall to make sure that, whenever a new regulatory requirement is to be imposed on business, we now first examine its likely impact on business costs and management time and assess that against whatever benefit is likely to accrue.
The objectives of deregulation policy are that business costs should be taken into account in all our decisions, that awareness of the needs of enterprise should be embedded into the public service culture and that outmoded regulation requirements should be removed. Regulatory requirements of all kinds are usually urged upon us by the Opposition. If they look at our economic policy, and, in particular, the performance of the small business sector, they will see that we need to cut red tape, to apply regulations in a sensitive manner and to reduce bureaucracy.
I shall not enter into the deregulation of markets, upon which we have so successfully embarked. We remember the battles conducted by the Opposition against the deregulation of express coach services and buses, the ending of the opticians' monopoly on spectacle frames and other things, all of which, in the end, brought great benefits to consumers, and, in most cases, greatly increased employment and activity in industry and in the professions.
Another thing that we should look at which is topical, if the Opposition are looking at burdens on business, is

rates. The Government are proposing to reform the rating system for industry in order to lift a real burden from industry in various parts of the country. Business rates have now been regularly increasing over many years by much more than the rate of inflation. By 1985, if we leave out North sea operations and look at the land-based economy, British firms were paying as much in business rates as in corporation tax. But there are differences between rates and corporation tax even. Rates have to be paid in good times and in bad, regardless of a firm's profitability. The trouble with rates is that they vary widely from year to year at the whim of the local authority.
The hon. Gentleman said that he is concerned about the costs being imposed on industry, but he should recall the increases of more than 60 per cent. imposed this year by Labour councils in Ealing and Waltham Forest. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to believe that that has a burdensome effect on small businesses in parts of London. In fact, Labour local authorities in London, to which he is allied, tend to drive out small businesses and deter start-up businesses on a grand scale by the business rate that they impose.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: It is not only in London and southern England that that has occurred. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that 1,000 jobs have recently been moved out of Manchester into leafy Cheshire by the Refuge Insurance Company, which has been driven out of Manchester by the high rates imposed upon it by the Left-wing Labour authority there? Does he share my astonishment that Labour Members of Parliament in the Manchester area are not welcoming with open arms our proposal on the unified business rate?

Mr. Clarke: Manchester is only one of many great northern cities which would benefit. Manchester city council is hostile to private industry and business and drives them out of the city that it purports to serve.
Let us go further north, to Newcastle upon Tyne. A firm there is now paying twice as much in rates for basically the same services as a firm in Croydon. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) is in his place. Jobs have been driven in the direction of his constituency by the Labour party in Newcastle. A major clothing retailer pays more per square foot in business rates in Newcastle than in Oxford street. The national non-domestic rate will remove such random distortions of competition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton pointed out, in the vast majority of cases business in the north and in inner-city areas generally will benefit greatly from the new national non-domestic rate. I am not sure, but I think that the Labour party remains opposed to that.
The combined effect of there valuation and the national non-domestic rate will transfer about £700 million to businesses in the north and the midlands. In Newcastle upon Tyne, business rates will be reduced by 32 per cent., in Manchester by 37 per cent. and in Liverpool by over 30 per cent. That policy will help lift the burden from business and industry in the regions and the inner cities, which the Opposition purport to be committed. I trust that the hon. Member for Dagenham will say that he applauds our decision to bring in a national non-domestic rate which will save business from such anomalies and the vagaries of Left-wing Labour authorities.

Mr. Gould: I am sure that the Minister is well aware that the CBI disagrees with almost everything that he has


said. But if he is right when he says that rates impose such a burden on business, for which there is virtually no evidence, what is he to say to businesses and communities in inner-city areas such as Paddington and Westminster in London, which desperately need help rather than additional burdens and which will clearly have to pay higher rates if a uniform business rate is brought in? If the Minister is right, that that will cripple them, what will he do to help them? He is supposed to be the Minister responsible for inner cities, is he not? Perhaps he will tell us something about that as well.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman contradicts himself in successive sentences. He says that there is no evidence that rates impose a burden, then he quotes as a critic of our proposals the CBI, the main burden of whose representations is that even our new proposals leave too high a rates burden on the commercial and business sector. I think that the Labour party is still defending the old system, largely imposed by the Labour party at the highest levels, of which nobody is in favour. The idea that the hon. Gentleman is now about to launch out on behalf of those businesses that will be affected by rating revaluation in Kensington and Westminster and other parts of the south is an interesting proposition. He obviously thinks that it is right that one should pay more in the high street in Newcastle than in Oxford street for retail premises. He obviously thinks that it is right that one should pay more in Manchester than in Cheshire. If he adheres to that position, far from lifting the burden on businesses and industry, he will drive businesses out of Labour-dominated areas at an even faster rate.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, I must get on. I have given way generously.
Let me deal with the particular questions raised by the hon. Member for Dagenham — particularly energy prices. The Opposition could not think of a subject for this debate, so they thought of burdens on industry and the increase in electricity prices. The new financial targets were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy on 3 November for the reasons that he stated. As everybody appreciates, it cannot be denied that we are embarking upon a major period of investment in generating capacity and in new power stations in Britain.
The hon. Gentleman says that the resulting increase in prices will have damaging effects. He should look at successive CBI surveys; they have all shown that electricity prices in the United Kingdom compare favourably with those in the rest of western Europe. Far from it being the case, as he lightly asserted in his speech, that we had successfully been using electricity as a milch cow in raising burdens in past years, the rate of return has in fact been dropping. The effect on the customer is that, even after the increase that is now being contemplated, electricity charges will still be less in real terms than they were six years ago. That is after the charges that we have announced. Large users in the United Kingdom—I am not talking about housewives, scared on their doorstep about their electricity bills—pay among the lowest electricity tariffs in western Europe.

Mr. Leigh: Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the interesting thesis of the hon. Member for

Dagenham (Mr. Gould) that we are merely fattening up the industry for privatisation, when electricity prices increased under the previous Labour Government by 170 per cent. for the domestic consumer and 130 per cent. for the industrial consumer? Did they want to fatten up the industry for privatisation, or was it incompetence?

Mr. Clarke: The previous Government were fattening up the bills rather than the industry. They were not contemplating privatisation but were feeding Government expenditure. The allegation of it being used as a milch cow is much better aimed at the previous Labour Government, who increased real-terms costs and had to attempt to keep up with inflation. If my hon. Friend wants to know more about the comparison between our record and that of the previous Labour Government, electricity prices rose 30 per cent. more than inflation while they were in office. The largest price increase under this Government will be lower than the smallest price increase that we ever had under the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Barron: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: I know that the hon. Gentleman is closely concerned with energy matters, and I shall give way in a moment.
The supply of gas to contract customers is of serious concern to some high users in the industrial world. It is now the subject of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission by the Director General of Fair Trading. We have received complaints about British Gas pricing policies from the Gas Consumers Council and from a number of important individual consumers and companies. The hon. Member for Dagenham claims that privatisation will destroy things. When British Gas was; privatised, the powers under general competition law were applied to the contract gas market to ensure that its position was not abused. The reference to the MMC shows that those powers are not a dead letters and when we have had the MMC report—in about nine months' time—we shall see whether action is called for.
However, the general position on past and contemplated prices is satisfactory for British industry. It is not easy to find evidence that British industry is disadvantaged compared with its competitors abroad. In fact, the effect on business costs of the prices in contemplation will be tiny if a price increase for electricity of from 8 to 9 per cent. takes place. That will increase industry's costs, on average, by one sixth of 1 per cent. So the move is not as indefensible or damaging as the hon. Gentleman claimed.

Mr. Barron: The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke earlier about what the CBI reviews have had to say on the matter of energy costs to industry. Will he comment on what the Director General of the CBI said about that earlier this year? He said that he did not see why intensive energy users and many industrial users generally should face the steep increases.

Mr. Clarke: I would quote the CBI's own surveys in answer, and cite the examples that I have quoted to show that large users, whom we accept need special attention, are not badly discriminated against—as compared with their rivals — by the pricing policies of the energy companies — but when they make complaints, as, for example, about gas pricing policy, we have powers to refer to the MMC, and we use them.
On the matter of interest rates, the main point made by the hon. Member for Dagenham throughout was to ask


why the Department of Trade and Industry did not speak out more often about these things. By way of a basic constitutional point, within the Government it is the Treasury that acts as spokesman on these matters, and it is not customary in a Conservative Government for one Department to rampage around campaigning against others. When the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was in government, a different system, I know, prevailed.
As has been pointed out, interest rates are not, as the hon. Member for Dagenham believes they are, plucked out of the air and imposed regardless of their consequences on quite a few other economic indicators in the economy. They have an effect on the general level of inflation, which is important to industry. They have an effect on the exchange rate, and it cannot always casually be assumed, as it was by the hon. Gentleman, that as long as the exchange rate goes down against the dollar, that is advantageous to British industry.
We have already had two reductions in interest rates in the past few weeks in response to present circumstances, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has always made it clear that he desires to keep interest rates down as far as practically possible while maintaining downward pressure on inflation. Frankly, if, in the present uncertainty in the financial exchange markets, it came to a judgment between the abilities of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to manage the financial affairs of this country—to choose the proper interest rates and to maintain some stability in international exchange rates—and the abilities of the hon. Member for Dagenham, based on the theory that he espoused in his speech, I believe that most people in business would feel much more confident in the Chancellor's abilities. Right now, he is riding the crest of a wave because of the reassurance that he gives the industrial and commercial community at a time of some uncertainty. As far as I could see, the hon. Gentleman's whole argument favoured a downward pressure on interest rates—indeed, limitless reductions in interest rates. His speech was remarkably reminiscent, in its long analysis of interest rates, of Hugh Dalton after the war, rather than of a vision of social policies for the future.
I think I have touched on most of the hon. Gentleman's points; and I have touched on many other things that he did not mention in the area of burdens on industry. The hon. Gentleman must understand that, in an enterprise economy, a great deal of business success depends on management having the ability to manage, the liberty to take commercial decisions and the time to manage its business free from Government restraint. Management needs open access to reasonably liberal markets without Government policies intervening to distort those markets, in which people have to make judgments.
If the hon. Gentleman accepts all that, he is making progress, but he has a long way to go. If he tries to sell to the Labour party the theme of lifting burdens on industry and management, in addition to all the other themes that he tried to urge on it at the party conference, from the point of view of the national interest I wish him success. I do not think, however, that he has a snowball's chance in Hades of success with the movement in which he now finds himself.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. This is a short debate and many hon. Members wish to speak, so I appeal for short speeches.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I support the motion, which concerns the ever-growing burden on industry. I want to speak specifically about the newly proposed electricity increases, although at this stage it is not clear exactly how much and where they will take effect. There is no doubt, however, that industry will be paying more for electricity in April next year.
The electricity price increase is not only a direct attack on industry and on domestic consumers, but is a tax on energy. The Government have stated on numerous occasions that they would avoid putting VAT on energy charges at all costs. They have said that in the House and elsewhere, yet one can only describe the likely 10 per cent. increase as a tax on energy—it is some form of VAT through the back door. The Secretary of State for Energy justifies the position, as the Minister mentioned, by saying that new plants for electricity generation need to be built —presumably starting in 1988–89, the year in which the increase starts. If the proposed increase is required for that purpose, that is a sad comment on the pricing mechanism that has been used and on the way in which the electricity supply industry and the Government have run the industry during the past eight years. If that reason is to be taken at face value, they obviously got things very wrong.
On Tuesday this week at the nuclear forum I put it to Lord Marshall that the pricing mechanism of long-run marginal costs that had been used by the industry had obviously failed. Lord Marshall's reply had little to do with the need for new investment for generation; he merely said that the rate of return on investment should be higher than the current average of 2·75 per cent. It is worth asking why the Government have set those levels of return. First, there is no need for it to be higher. The rate of return took into account the paying off of debt to the country that had to be cleared by 1991. Indeed, the electricity supply industry would then be debt-free. Secondly, it took account of all likely future investment in generating capacity up to the year 2000.
If we examine the industry's medium-term investment plan, published in September 1986—Ministers are now saying that it is out of date, but the ink has hardly dried on it yet—we see that it included a projection of the likely requirement of generating capacity up to the end of the century, and on that basis it had already taken into account capital expenditure within the current pricing structure. The plan states:
CEGB capital expenditure for the seven years 1986–87 to 1992–93 shows a small increase compared with the previous MTDP… expenditure forecasts also reflect the latest planning assumptions to meet future plant requirements up to the year 2002.
So it is not good enough for Ministers to say that they have to put on the increases to pay for future generation. That is not true, and I wish someone would stand up and tell the real truth.
In announcing the proposed price increase to the House on 3 November, the Secretary of State for Energy could not explain why or how the planning assumptions and forecasts made by the industry about future generating capacity had changed since 1986. The plan went on to say that the tariff increases over the same period, that is, to


1993, would be below the general rate of inflation. This was based on the assumption that there is no significant increase in the industry's financial targets.
The Government have now decided that the industry's rate of return should be increased, but on any assessment that should not be necessary. Electricity is a service industry that makes substantial profits, and without this massive price increase it planned to be debt-free within the next couple of years. Why should the Government push up the rate of return if not purely for the benefit of the Treasury? Even if we accept the need for industry to have a high rate of return, we should examine more closely the figures that we are given. The rate of return of 2·75 per cent. that the Government pose is based on current cost accounting. Most industries use historic cost accounting methods. On the historic basis, the current rate of return is 14 per cent. That is the return on historic cost accounting without charging one penny extra to industrial or domestic consumers from next April.
The CBI has questioned this use of current cost accounting. The CBI asked:
Why has the target return for the electricity supply industry been fixed at 4·75% "—
I understand that that will be the rate in two years—
in current cost accounting terms which is the equivalent of 16–18% in historical terms?
Perhaps the CBI's question could be answered by the Minister who replies to the debate. The director-general of the CBI commented:
even in markets where companies face considerable market, technical and competitive risks, returns of this order are not being achieved and electricity faces no such risk.
In the end we are left with two propositions and my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) gave one of them. They are the two propositions about why the Government have felt the need to force the electricity price increase on industrial and domestic consumers. In the short term, one reason is to get money into the Treasury. That is a form of indirect taxation and will presumably pay for more tax cuts in the years to come. In the longer term, it is clear that the increases are about fattening the industry for privatisation. Even the CBI has its doubts about the wisdom of that procedure.
The CBI's director-general, Mr. Banham, said:
By the time the industry is privatised it will have a completely clean balance sheet. Some of the debt could be privatised as well Few manufacturers would consider putting up prices to pay for future capacity.
It is quite obvious that even industry itself believes that it is wrong for the Government to do what they are now doing. The Minister knows quite well what they are doing. The day after the statement of 3 November in the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that there was no way that any electricity price increase was to swell the coffers of the Exchequer. He said that it was certainly not a tax.
I wrote to the Chancellor, but to date he has not replied to my letter. I asked where the money would go in the year 1988–89 when this massive increase will go on. Lead contracts for new generation take between five and 20 years, depending on the type of plant, and will obviously not take that money. Where will that money go in that first year when this massive increase averaging 9 to 10 per cent. goes on, if not to the Treasury coffers? If it does not go there, it will gather dust elsewhere. It is obvious where that money will go and no hon. Member should be kidded about that. It will go to the Treasury to be used as a bribe to the electorate prior to the next general election.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am amused by the degree of importance that the Opposition are giving to the CBI, which is now their new-found friend. I do not see any objection to the hon. Gentleman's analysis, even if it were correct—which it is not. As the taxpayer is the investor in the electricity industry, it seems perfectly right that any dividend from that industry should go to the taxpayer. That dividend would be given to all taxpayers.
What does the hon. Gentleman say about the proposition, advanced by the Labour party in the last Parliament and before that, that there was a need to keep electricity prices up in order to support the inefficiencies in the coal industry? All it was seeking to do was to bankroll the National Union of Mineworkers. The hon Gentleman will remember that Lord Marshall said that if it were not for the need to purchase coal from British Coal under the monopoly agreement electricity prices could have been more than 10 per cent. lower—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. This is a short debate and interventions should be brief.

Mr. Barron: What Lord Marshall said and what has been said recently about the price of coal and about the savings that could be made are not true. In June last year, when the new joint understanding between the coal industry and the CEGB was drawn up, there was an immediate 7 per cent. reduction in real terms in the price of coal. By the end of 1990–91, when the joint understanding finishes, there will be a real reduction in the price of British coal to the CEGB of 18 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should ask the newly privatised British Gas whether it will be able to say in the years to come that it will sell energy 18 per cent. cheaper in real terms. Everybody knows quite well that that will not be the case.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned tax dividends by the Exchequer. There are more than 92,000 domestic cut-offs of electricity each year and many of the people who are cut off never pay a penny in income tax because of their low incomes. I would much sooner reduce the number of cutt-offs and ensure that those people did not have to pay tax through an increased tariff and would be better defended to go through winters and not be cut off.
The House has been grossly misled by Ministers talking about the new electricity price increases and the need of the industry for new generation. A hole has been blown in that argument by the projections of the industry itself, and nobody with any common sense and who has any knowledge of the industry can defend that argument. When he is winding up, the Minister should tell us exactly the reason why we are to have an increase averaging 9 or 10 per cent. in electricity prices next April. He should come clean with the people, including people in poverty households, and say that the increase will be stopped now in order to protect industrial and domestic consumers. The increases are unnecessary, except to fatten the coffers of the Treasury or the calf ready for privatisation.

Mr. Richard Page: My heart goes out to the Opposition because of their struggle to find topics for Opposition Days that, at the end of the debates, do not result in them holding a bloodstained foot in one hand and the proverbial smoking revolver in the other. Today they could be accused of being a little smarter than usual because they have chosen a subject that is a


little more difficult to interpret and to tie down. They have given themselves just a little more room to manoeuvre. I worked and struggled to find out what the Opposition meant by the burdens imposed on the real economy by Government policies.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Interest rates.

Mr. Page: I shall shortly deal with interest rates. At first I thought about unemployment. Then I looked at the employment figures and discovered that the numbers of people in work today is almost identical to the number in work in 1979.I found that the number of people going into work has increased for the last 16 months and that vacancies are higher than they have been for a long time. I thought about the gross overmanning in British Steel and British Leyland and in all the other nationalised industries that were being propped up in the period before 1979, and I said to myself, "Well, that is not too bad." I looked at the growth in the service sector and thought that, obviously, the Opposition would not have a go about unemployment.
Next, I looked at inflation today and at the roller coaster of inflation that we had in the past when it was 26 per cent. plus. I am grateful to the Labour party because if the Labour Government had not run the economy in the way that they did in 1976, I would not have won the by-election in Workington, where we found that the taxes for every working man had gone up because of inflation and that savings had been eroded. The inflation rate now is 4·8 per cent. That is a credit to the Government, and I came to the conclusion that the Opposition would not be having a go at the Government about inflation.
Then I thought about the public sector borrowing requirement. I looked at that and looked again to my time in Workington and remembered at that time it was 9·3 per cent. of gross domestic product. It meant that out of every £5 that the Labour Government were spending they were borrowing £1. I thought that the Labour party would not be foolish enough to have a go at the size of the present PSBR, particularly bearing in mind that this year it will amount to about 1 per cent. of gross domestic product or maybe even zero as the year goes on.
I thought that the debate might be about the total amount of gross domestic product, but a trip to the Library quickly proved that GDP is now 117 per cent. compared with 102 per cent. in 1979. I started to analyse the components that make it up. Output of the production industry is up — my right hon. and learned Friend touched on that matter. As to exports, I discovered that the CBI, which has been prayed in aid by Labour Members with great enthusiasm, concluded in its latest survey that 84 per cent. of directors thought that their companies were doing well, or very well, and were optimistic at their prospects.
Over the past quarter, exports have increased by 10·5 per cent. [Interruption.] Manufacturing industry in Britain is beginning to improve—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) wants to intervene he should do so and stop shouting from a sedentary position. I thought that the Labour party would not have a go at our exports, bearing in mind that for the first time, on a consistent basis, exports are increasing. When we took office in 1979, the export figures that were championed by the Labour party were lower than those

for 1974. There had been a consistent decline in exports over the past decades, but under the Government they are beginning to increase.
I wondered whether we would be debating small businesses. I thought about the record of the Government on small businesses—what we have done with the enterprise allowance scheme, how we have started small workshops and the lower rates of corporation tax—and I thought that the Opposition would not be daft enough to have a go about those matters.
The truth finally came out, as I watched the acceptable smile on the face of the tiger, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who advanced the case for the Opposition. He produced a melange of economic and political arguments that did not come together. He made great play of the fact that we invest so much abroad. It is true that we have the largest overseas investments of any nation in the world—about $170 billion, which is just ahead of Japan—but what he did not mention was the $5 billion that returns to Britain from those investments. That return must be an exceptional and smart investment.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the wiping out of one fifth of British industry, but he did not mention the overmanning and poor productivity record of British industry.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: As to the hon. Gentleman's statement about overmanning, which apparently he attributes to the period before 1979, will he comment on the authoritative National Economic Development Council survey of two and a half years ago that compared Britain's and Germany's manufacturing industry? It demonstrated that, with the same machinery, German productivity was 60 per cent. higher than comparable production runs of British firms. Is he trying to imply that even today British industry is overmanned by 60 per cent.?

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman has quoted figures from two and a half years ago. If he had worked in British industry, as I have, he would know that it had the equipment but that it was not using it. It was limiting its production runs, and I have had personal experience of working on production lines when the use of automatic machinery was limited under trade union agreements. Thus, it was not effectively used and overmanning was artificially maintained. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the productivity figures of the past two or three years he will notice, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, that they have increased by 4 per cent. per year and are continuing to do so.
If the hon. Gentleman now visits the Ford plant at Saarlouis in West Germany and compares it with the one at Dagenham, he will discover that in Britain Ford has caught up in productivity, which is one of the reasons why it is investing in Britian. At last, it will receive an adequate return and its machinery is being used to its full capacity. I shall not labour that point because I realise that other hon. Members wish to speak.
The hon. Member for Dagenham mentioned imports but did not mention the opportunity that they give the British manufacturer. The number of cars that are being made by British manufacturers and supplied and sold into the British market, compared with the numbers of imports, demonstrates how the economy is beginning to react to these opportunities.
Right at the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham the truth came out—it was almost slipped in—in the statement, "We need a definite industrial strategy." In those words all was revealed. The Labour party wants a return to the National Enterprise Board and to playing with our industrial companies. I make a plea to my hon. Friend the Minister; leave management to manage; leave industry to industrialists; keep politicians out and allow our economy to continue to grow.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I share the surprise of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the choice of the subject for debate. The debate has fallen into a predictable pattern. It is sad that a matter as important as British industry should degenerate, in a very short debate, into Labour and Conservative Members trying to score points rather than trying to find common ground that will improve what is, I concede, an improving position.
The Chancellor did not want to be reminded of the consequences of Government policy between 1979 and 1981—nor would I if I were a Conservative Minister, because it was a catastrophe and history will record it as such.
I readily accept that we cannot continually criticise the Government year in and year out given that we have moved on from those days and that there is evidence of significant recovery in many sectors of the economy. I should have thought, to the extent that it is true, that it would have been welcomed by hon. Members. It does not do any hon. Member credit to appear to want to belittle genuine recovery.
We are entitled to question, in a constructive manner, the Government about certain aspects of their policy to obtain a change of attitude that might enable us to get more out of our economy in the coming years. There is no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer regards the rate of interest as the only mechanism in which he will actively intervene. It is the only instrument of the economy on which he states he has a policy. The consequence of that policy is a genuine burden on industry. It is fair for the Government to say that they have lifted other burdens, but it does not stand up if the burden is not a real one.
Given the interest rates of 9, 10 and 11 per cent., the rate of return that is required when inflation is low is relatively high. High interest rates aggravate matters for manufacturing industries that are involved in competitive trade—whether it be in exporting or in sectors where they are vulnerable to imports—particularly when dealing with a country such as West Germany, which is considering reducing its interest rate to 2·5 per cent. which is a negative inflation rate. That gives German companies a considerable advantage, particularly in sectors of common trade.
The other problem that was raised—the Chancellor of the Exchequer regards interest rate policy as the mechanism to respond to this —was high or unstable exchange rates. With the collapse of the dollar there is a worry that the pound will rise against the dollar, thus repeating some of the problems of 1979, 1980 and 1981. It is sensible to avoid that happening again, particularly when we are experiencing some recovery. The Government should state more clearly what action they will take independently and, more important, in co-ordination with

others to ensure some degree of stability and predictability within the exchange rate, which is vital for British manufacturing industry involved in overseas trade.
The House will be aware that the Liberal party amendment has not been selected. The only reason that I allude to the amendment is that it repeats our consistent and insistent plea for the Government to recognise that we must become a full member of the
Exchange Rate Mechanism of the European Monetary System.
It is deeply depressing that the Government claim to be in favour of membership, but never get round to becoming a member. In the past two weeks we have had the unedifying spectacle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister falling out over that issue. Clearly the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to decide that the time was right for membership, but he was sharply reminded by the Prime Minister that she would not join the system. She will never join it as long as she remains Prime Minister. She does not want to become so closely involved with the European Community.
I believe that the British economy is an essential part of the European Community. We are interdependent. It is extremely unfortunate that we continue to take a very negative attitude towards full membership of the exchange rate system as it would help to bring down interest rates and stabilise the exchange rate.
It was interesting to note that the debate was opened by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) from the Opposition Front Bench. As far as I can see, his only surviving Left-wing credential is that he remains anti-European Community. The debate was opened for the Government by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry who in his utterances daily becomes more hostile towards everything to do with the European Community. Many people in British industry regret those attitudes. They believe that they have been seriously misled by the Government who said that they wanted to take advantage of the opportunities of a widening internal market.
I want to refer to the additional burden of electricity costs, to which reference has already been made. Indeed, I want to refer more widely to energy costs. There is no doubt that energy costs are significant for certain sections of industry. It was facile and insulting for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to say that the Government's calculation is that the average cost for industry would increase only by 2 or 3 per cent. and that that was not an excessive burden. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and everyone in industry is aware that the average hides very wide variations and includes industries in which energy costs account for 15 or 25 per cent. of manufacturing costs. The burden in that context is very serious in terms of competitiveness, and that is wholly unjustifiable. Across the board, the CBI estimates that energy costs will amount to £1 billion in industry. The impact on certain industries is far more serious and it is outrageous that the Government will not recognise that.
Hon. Members have mentioned the reference of British Gas to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for over-pricing. All hon. Members involved during the debates on the Gas Act 1986 explained that that was inevitable. We are exactly where we predicted we would be, and we will still have to wait for an investigation which could take many months.
Many industries have been unable to gain access to competitive supplies of gas and the monopoly has been abused and exploited. The gas industry has not changed. The people who ran it in the private sector are running it in the public sector and they are using exactly the same unimaginative old criteria. They are basing the price of gas not on the investment or rate of return, but on the relative price of oil, which has nothing to do with the price of gas. As I represent an area in the north of Scotland, I hope that the investigation into industrial gas prices, coupled with the likely privatisation of electricity, will be used as an opportunity to give people in the north of Scotland a competitive advantage on energy prices.
The Government claim to believe in markets and competition. I find that increasingly difficult to believe because they have done more than any Government to promote huge monopolies which have ripped off the consumer rather than benefited him through competition. We are constantly told in the north of Scotland that we have the cheapest electricity in the United Kingdom because we have hydro power and because, in association with the South of Scotland electricity board, we have a substantial amount of nuclear power which we are told is cheap. If such energy is cheap, I want an absolute assurance that the increases imposed in the electricity industry in England and Wales will not be extended to Scotland. If and when privatisation goes ahead, I want the assurance that our industries will have the opportunity to gain access to cheaper and competitive electricity which will provide a cost advantage.
I could give many reasons why industry should locate in the north of Scotland. However, there are disadvantages in terms of transport and access to the market. Access to cheap energy would be a great compensating factor and that should be properly conceded to us to give us the opportunity to promote new enterprises on the basis of competitive energy prices.
The reforms that are being introduced for business rates—which are an acknowledged burden to industry—have not been spelt out in sufficient detail to reassure many people in business and especially those in small businesses. They believe that the consequence of the uniform business rate is that it will increase the costs for small businesses in remote and relatively poor rural areas because they do not have a rich tax base. That causes real concern. The disparities and anomalies which that will create will have a minor ripple effect, perhaps not comparable with the rating revaluation, but businesses will be hard hit by the proposals. It is extremely unfortunate that the Government have not consulted more widely with business to explore the alternatives.
It is all very well to claim that the business rate should take account of a business's ability to pay. I fully appreciate and acknowledge that, and I agree that many hard-line Left-wing Labour councillors have ignored it to the great detriment of their economies and the people living in their communities. In spite of that, every business absorbs services and generates costs within the local community and there must be some contribution to those regardless of whether they are making a profit. I accept that some of that should be profit-related.
At the end of eight years in power, the Government have some reason to claim that, in spite of their earlier catastrophic mistakes, we are beginning to see some

recovery in industry. I do not believe that the Government deserve as much credit as they choose to take, but that is the stuff of politics. There are still burdens on industry that the Government could lift and there is still a division between the impact of the Government's policies on industry and industry's requirements.
It was suggested that we do not understand the full responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry because it shares its role with the Treasury. One of the reasons for Japan's success is that its Ministry of Trade and Industry is dominant over the Treasury. If that was the position in this country, we might have a successful manufacturing industry that could take on Japan, instead of which we are currently enjoying a recovery which must go on for a few years before I am convinced that we are on the right road.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I know that time is short and I will endeavour not to speak for too long. It is very important that this matter is discussed seriously because people in British industry and elsewhere in the country will listen to what we say. Therefore, I hope that I may do a modest service to the House if I make a number of comments on the speech made by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould).
The hon. Member for Dagenham dealt with the subject in an extraordinarily frivolous way. He made a number of basic errors in his appreciation of the present position which I believe should not pass without comment. He said that the economy had been running at a low speed until 1986. That is apparently the main burden of the Labour party's complaint against the Government since we came to office in 1979.
That was an extraordinary remark, because the one salient feature about this country's economic performance over the past few years is that, astonishingly, since 1982, year after year, we have consistently had the fastest rate of growth in Europe. That has been the case in only one other year since the second world war—in 1963–64. Indeed, it has been the case in very few years during the last century. One can count them on the fingers of one hand.
If the hon. Member for Dagenham knew more about economics than I suspect he does, judging by his speech, he would know how extraordinarily difficult it is to sustain a higher rate of growth than one's competitors over that length of time. The fact that we could do so without running into balance of payments or other constraints shows the remarkable dynamism and flexibility of the supply side of the British economy during the past few years.
The hon. Member for Dagenham also complained about the level of investment. Of course, I have not been able to check with Hansard, but I think that he said that the level of investment in training and in research and development is too low at 8 per cent. per annum. I think that he was confusing it with fixed capital formation in this country, which is 8 per cent. of GDP.

Mr. Gould: I am sorry to say that it is the hon. Gentleman who is confused. The only time that I mentioned the figure of 8 per cent. was to point out that manufacturing investment remains 8 per cent. below its 1979 level. It may be as well if the hon. Gentleman remembers that figure.

Mr. Davies: I take the hon. Gentleman's correction happily. However, if he knew a little bit more about what is happening in industry, he would realise that there has been an interesting secular change during the past two years. Investment in fixed capital formation and in hardware—we know that the Labour party has a fetish about investment in hardware, and always has had—has become relatively less important in expenditures that are related not to current sales but to future sales, which is the way in which I prefer to define "investment". Investment in software has become ever more crucial. Because of accounting conventions, software is written off as a current expense but it is just as important, if not more important, for the long-term productive capability of industry.
Anybody who does not understand that important shift between investment in hardware and investment in software, but simply looks journalistically and superficially at the figures, as does the hon. Gentleman, shows a low level of understanding about what is going on, and what should be going on, in British industry.
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's position gets even worse. We heard several times that interest rates are the great burden on British industry and that our interest rates are three times higher than those in Germany. That suggests that the hon. Gentleman must have been talking about nominal rates because, although our nominal rates are not quite three times higher than those in Germany, they may be close to that figure.
However, we also heard an interesting and slightly discursive academic lecture about the importance of interest rates balancing the interests of lenders and borrowers, of savers and investors and of interest rates as a price mechanism establishing an appropriate equilibrium between current and postponed consumption. We know all that. The hon. Gentleman obviously read the first part of his textbook on elementary economics, but he did not read on to discover the important and vital difference between real and nominal interest rates.
All that theory makes only the slightest sense if the hon. Gentleman was talking about real interest rates. But they are not higher than in Germany. That sort of confusion could not possibly pass in modern industry, which has increasingly strong, rigorous and professional standards in its use of concepts, language and planning. The hon. Gentleman would be laughed out of any board room, in any self-respecting company, for making such a confusion between real and nominal interest rates.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: No, I fear that I have too little time to give way. I am sorry. I am also sorry that the hon. Member for Dagenham spoke for rather a long time, leaving but little time for Back-Bench Members who wish to comment on his speech. However, he was wise to do so because if I had the time, I would be inspired to make a great many more not very flattering remarks about his speech.
I turn now to another matter which is important to the interests of the House and to the reputation and standing of the so-called revisionist wing of the Labour party, with which, I believe, the hon. Member for Dagenham wishes to identify. It is important that the hon. Gentleman gets this matter straight. Again, I am quoting from memory, but I believe that at one point the hon. Gentleman said

that no one talks any more about M3, which shows that no one is interested in the money supply. That was an extraordinary elementary mistake. I am sorry to hear a Front-Bench spokesman fall into the trap of the most vulgarised and will journalistic monetarism that I have ever come across and to equate one of the many monetary aggregates with the money supply.
I am sorry to have to give the hon. Gentleman a lecture about elementary economics, but I must tell him that the money supply has existed, exists now, and will always exist, that it will always have an important effect on the real economy and will be intimately related to interest rates. From hearing his speech, I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman knows the difference between an IS-LM curve and a map of the London Underground. Nevertheless, I assure him that the money supply will always exist and that it must always be taken into account by any responsible Government.
It is a superficial and dangerous trap for anyone to equate the general concept of the money supply with one particular aggregate. It is perfectly true that it is no longer the case that anybody takes M3 seriously as a proxy for aggregate demand in the economy. The reasons for that are technical, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would benefit from a lecture on that subject. However, I do not have the time to give it to him.
Suffice it to say that it is related to technical changes in the banking markets, to the relatively high level of real interest rates throughout the world economy during the 1980s, and to the fact that many financial resources that were previously kept on current account are now kept on deposit account which, I advise the hon. Gentleman, is included in the M3 figure. What is more, many savings are placed on deposit accounts, which have had a high real rate of return during the past few years, which previously would have been invested in instruments that were not included in any monetary aggregate because they were not considered to be part of liquidity.
Suffice it to say also that M3 is one of many aggregates. It is important to consider the sum of aggregates. To decide that because one aggregate no longer effectively tracks aggregate demand we should throw over the whole concept of watching what goes on in the money supply—that was the basis of what the hon. Member for Dagenham seriously suggested this afternoon—is to fall into an error that would be a howler if it were made in the classroom. It is a disgrace when it comes from a Front-Bench spokesman and when it is used in a speech that pretends to set out to the Government the sort of sound, rigorous and professional policies that we need to provide the right climate for British industry in the future.

Mr. Chris Mullen: I shall be brief, because time permits me to make only one point. There have been many references to the alleged success of the economy under this Government. We should spend a few moments to reflect on why this is so. It is not due to any miracle of economic management, to the rigours of market forces on productivity or to the Government's claim that they have lowered taxes which, incidentally, they have not. If there is any one single boost that the Government have given to the economy it has been because the Government have had North sea oil revenues. No other Government


before have been able to lay their hands on so much windfall revenue, and perhaps no future Government will be able to do so.
In case any hon. Member is in any doubt about that, I refer the House to the figures to be found inHansardof 24 July 1987 in a written answer at column 568. I have totted up the figures only roughly, but the Government have received £12 billion in royalties,£30 billion in petroleum revenue tax, £11 billion in corporation tax and £4·3 billion in supplementary petroleum duty. If there is any one factor that has enabled the Government simultaneously to preside over 3 million unemployed and to cut taxes, that, rather than any miracle of economic management, is the true explanation and they know it.
What troubles me, and I am sure many people, is what will happen when North sea oil revenues run out, when the music stops and revenue from these instant one-off privatisation sales is all gone. What will the Government do then? Will they invite the Labour party to form a Government to clear up the mess? I suspect so. When they have blown all public assets and all public revenue, there will be nothing left to invest in manufacturing industry. That is the prime reason for the mess which they have got us into.

Mr. Tony Blair: This has been a short but useful debate and I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on their speeches. The hon. Members for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) and for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) also contributed. What the speech of the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding lacked in humility was certainly made up for in eccentric indignation.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) appeared surprised that we had chosen this subject for debate. I can think of nothing more opportune than to debate the burden of interest rates on industry. Obviously, one alliance habit will survive into the merged party and that is the nauseating line of trying to score party political points off opponents by accusing opponents of scoring party political points. I have always noted that about alliance Members and it seems that will survive in the phoenix that rises from the ashes.
The Government's response has been entirely predict-able. They say that there is better news on output, but fail to mention that it is only now creeping past 1979 levels. They say that there is better news on investment, yet fail to realise that investment is still below 1979 levels and worse than any of our competitors. They say that there is better news on exports, but fail to mention imports and that we are heading for the worst balance of trade deficit in our manufacturing history. They say that there has been some improvement in unemployment, but fail to realise that that is not nearly significant enough to make a real impact on the problems of the regions, inner cities and other areas.
Moreover, the recognition that, whatever the terms of the debate six weeks ago, the past six weeks have been an eternity in the life of the world economy and that arguments that may have been relevant then are not relevant now, was entirely absent. Whatever position is taken, it is beyond dispute that, because of the stock

market collapse and what has happened to the world economy in the past few weeks, even the progress that we have made from the depths of recession is now potentially at risk. What was missing from the long speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was any attempt to explain what the Government response will be to the potential risk of recession arising from the collapse of the markets in the past few weeks.
We know that billions of pounds have been wiped off stocks and shares throughout the world. That has a recessionary impact. We know that if the United States cuts its budget deficit that will have a recessionary impact. We know that the main and immediate effect of a falling dollar is for the United States to shut out our exports from its markets. We know, too, that there is no way in which this country can avoid the cold recessionary winds that will blow around the world.
In the LondonEvening Standarda few days ago, Stanley Kalms, the chairman of Dixons—[Interruption.] Perhaps the London Evening Standard is now to be treated like the bishops and. apparently from this debate, the CBI. They are no longer the Government's friends. Mr. Stanley Kalms, Coloroll. one of Britain's fastest growing companies, and Fisons, a £1·5 billion company, have all been saying that it is nonsense to assume that we can insulate ourselves from pressures from abroad. We look to the Government for a sign that they recognise that and have a strategy to deal with it. Yet we did not hear one word about that when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster opened the debate. Perhaps we shall when the Minister replies.
Many of the gains which the Government say British industry has made in the past few months have resulted from the increased competitiveness of British industry, resulting from the fall in the exchange rate some time ago. The Bank of England admitted that in its recent Bank of England Quarterly.We have the potential for recession, our exchange rate is appreciating against the dollar and the deutschmark, and the experiences of 1979 to 1981 could be repeated if we are not careful, yet while the world economy moves on, our Government's policy remains static.
Other countries have not been gripped by the same paralysis. Japan has introduced a package of public expenditure, tax cuts and interest rate cuts. West Germany is introducing £7 billion-worth of tax credits and will reduce interest rates tomorrow. Other countries' actions seem to indicate some acknowledgement of the potential for recession. We cut our interest rates by 1 per cent. which only compensated for the election rise in interest rates. Over the past few weeks we have heard nothing except messages from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to President Reagan and Secretary Baker.
Over the past few days I have studied some United States' newspapers to see what has happened to those messages from our Prime Minister and the Chancellor. They may have been scoring headlines here, but they have not rated the footnotes where it matters, which is in the Washington press and the rest of American press. Therefore, now the Government are blaming the Americans. As the Daily Mailtold us only a few days ago, now it is all the Americans' fault. Having been unable to blame their traditional enemies—the public sector, trade unions, the Labour party and the workshy unemployed—the Government have been reduced to blaming their friends. That shows their desperation.
The Government say, "Let's wait and see what the United States does and what response it has to these changing circumstances." With respect, the United States' response is obvious—it is looking after the United States. I do not blame it for that; I simply say that we should be doing the same for ourselves. Clearly, the United States has decided to compensate for any reduction in domestic demand by pumping liquidity into the system by lowering interest rates. Indeed, as an official of the Bundesbank put it the other day, "It is all very well expecting us to support the dollar, but every time we go and buy a dollar, the United States goes and prints another."
The anti-recessionary measures which the United States is taking will simply visit the recession on our country, unless we take avoiding action now. It is essential that we do. When the Minister replies, will he tell us why we are not reducing interest rates? The CBI, the Engineering Employers Federation, the trade unions and home owners all want that. Only the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and perhaps one or two people in the City are opposed to it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley pointed out, interest rates are a burden on industry, as is the hike in electricity prices. According to the CBI,£900 million will be added to industry's costs because of these electricity prices. The Labour party even has the chairman of the CBI, David Nickson, on its side, which is the ideological equivalent of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) supporting the Government. Even Mr. Nickson is saying that the Labour party is right and that electricity rises are wrong. Again and again, when our Government have the chance to support industry, their deliberate policy is not to do so.
We have tried for a long time to find out from the Government what their strategy is for industry. We have not yet been told, and we want to be told when the Minister winds up the debate, what their strategy is for dealing with potential recession. All we are told by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is that there will be a new set of priorities for the Department. What is virtually impossible to find out is whether that amounts to any more than the activities of a philosophy seminar. Every time that we try to pin down the noble Lord on exactly what he means, we are given a mixture of words that seems to mean nothing. What we can glean, however, is the insight that the Government intend to adopt a hands-off, no-intervention, opting-out policy. What they want for the individual in education and housing, they want for the Government in industry.
The problem that British industry now faces is not the need for the Government to stand back and to abrogate the role of public policy-makers. We need the Government to work in partnership in industry, to help to meet the recessionary pressures and help it to expand. Anyone who looks at the difficulties that British industry will continue to face over the next few years must conclude that, however well the Government say that they have been doing, the key is to expand, and to take the country into the 21st century with a manufacturing industry that can make it pay its way. The Labour party knows that; it is the Government who do not. That is why we shall support the motion tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): In the nine minutes

available to me, let me first thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) and for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). Let me also say to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) that I will carefully examine his remarks, and ensure that he receives a reply from either my office or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made an interesting observation about the need—which always seems to be expressed by the Liberal party—for consensus. To a certain extent, in a way that he may not like, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If we had to have a consensus, I should like to consider the consensus that the German Chancellors of the Exchequer delivered for their economy throughout the post-war period. If I have a favourite economist and a favourite Chancellor of the Exchequer, the economist would be Euchen and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be Erhard. Germany developed a social market economy in four crucial years, on principles established between 1948 and 1953, in which it said that its economy would be based on the pursuit of sound financial policies and on the importance of open markets and competition, and that nothing in the social market economy should damage incentives to work.
Those principles sound very familiar to my other favourite economist, the current British Chancellor of the Exchequer. They should also sound familiar to the Liberal party and the Labour party, but they do not. Their colleagues in Germany, the Social Democratic party, adopted those principles in 1959. If there is a tragedy in British post-war economic history, it is that the British Labour party could never bring itself to adopt the same principles. It has too dogmatic a view to espouse them.
We have heard a good deal about the real economy. The real economy employs 21 million people, distributed across various sectors: 14·5 million are in the service sector and 5 million in the manufacturing sector. I wish that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) would say to the 2·3 million employees in the financial services sector that they matter too. They make a contribution to our balance of payments. They are not simply the sellers of money or the money makers, who the hon. Gentleman seemed to believe are not true servants of our economy. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) bowled him middle stump. He pointed out to his hon. Friend that an appreciating deutschmark and an appreciating yen have not been the enemy of their efforts to continue to improve their market share in the world markets. Other non-price factors are of great importance.
I do not believe that Opposition Members have read carefully the latest CBI survey. If they had, they would have asked themselves what a manager in the real economy looks for when assessing his business prospects—the confidence factors, and the decisions that he should be making for his company. The first thing he looks at is his order book, and the news on order books is excellent. Our manufacturing sector grew by an almost unprecedented 6 per cent. last year, and is projected to grow at a faster rate than the general level of growth in our economy. Opposition Members who represent constituencies with predominantly industrial employers should celebrate that fact, and endorse it. We believe that the trend can be continued.
I should like to answer the questions put by Opposition Members in the terms in which they were put. They have shown tonight that they have a quasi-Stalinist approach


to economic history and policy making. I say that because, like Stalinists, they enjoy the rewriting of economic history. Certain events which may have happened did not happen. Certain events can be expunged from the record, and forgotten.
Let us go back three years, when, at long last, the Leader of the Opposition seemed to say that the Opposition had an economic policy. He said:
Although our motivation and measures would differ from that of the United States President, our method for recovery—of expansionary budgets, of extending credit and of public expenditure—would differ only in the way in which we would insist that systematically, it applied to our whole country.
Six or seven weeks ago, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said:
The origins of the crash of 87 …lie in the mismanagement of the major economies of the West. The United States has spent money borrowed from abroad on other people's goods. It is in deficit … It was the structural imbalance which was bound to lead to disaster.
That is what the hon. Gentleman said in The Times. In The Guardian, he said:
Above all there is the US trade deficit. There is more than a little hypocrisy in the rest of the Western world's attitude to it.
In my view, there is more than a little hypocrisy in the Labour party's ambivalent attitude to the deficit and the way in which it affects our economy here.
The hon. Gentleman says that we should reverse our priorities. The House will know well what our priorities are; they have been stated many times by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Our priorities are reducing public expenditure, taxation and inflation. The Labour party, we know, would increase public expenditure, depending on which promises we believe, by between £10 billion and £30 billion. There is no way that that level of public expenditure can be sustained without increasing interest rates; yet that is at the heart of the motion.
The Opposition may say that they would increase taxation to cope with that expenditure. Would they wish to increase taxation on profits? On past form, yes. Would they wish to increase taxation on personal incomes? On past form, certainly. If we had not abolished the tax on jobs, it would now be costing us £4 billion per annum. However, if the Opposition rejected that option, they would have one alternative. They could print money, lots and lots of it. As we know, inflation is the father and mother of unemployment. We will not impose any of these burdens on commerce and industry. We reject that proposition.
The hon. Member for Dagenham has put forward a few non sequiturs. He too should be reminded of what he has said recently. In March of this year he said that the Labour party has been
forced to rummage around in a sort of historical junk shop where the only ready-made ideas are a clapped-out, reactionary dogma, which was barely relevant in the 1930s, let alone in the 1980s.
In January of this year, he said that the Labour party's policies are
long on dogma and jargon and short on common sense and realism.
It is for the hon. Gentleman's own reasons in his own words that I ask the House to reject the motion.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 267.

Division No. 91]
[7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Galbraith, Samuel


Allen, Graham
Galloway, George


Alton, David
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Anderson, Donald
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
George, Bruce


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Ashdown, Paddy
Golding, Mrs Llin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Ashton, Joe
Gould, Bryan


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Barron, Kevin
Grocott, Bruce


Battle, John
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Beckett, Margaret
Haynes, Frank


Beith, A. J.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bell, Stuart
Heffer, Eric S.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hinchliffe, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Holland, Stuart


Blair, Tony
Home Robertson, John


Boateng, Paul
Hood, James


Boyes, Roland
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bradley, Keith
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hoyle, Doug


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Buckley, George
Illsley, Eric


Caborn, Richard
Ingram, Adam


Callaghan, Jim
Janner, Greville


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
John, Brynmor


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Kilfedder, James


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lamond, James


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Leadbitter, Ted


Clay, Bob
Leighton, Ron


Clelland, David
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Cohen, Harry
Lewis, Terry


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Litherland, Robert


Corbett, Robin
Livingstone, Ken


Corbyn, Jeremy
Livsey, Richard


Cousins, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Crowther, Stan
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cryer, Bob
McAllion, John


Cummings, J.
McAvoy, Tom


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McCartney, Ian


Cunningham, Dr John
McCrea, Rev William


Darling, Alastair
Macdonald, Calum


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McFall, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McKelvey, William


Dewar, Donald
McLeish, Henry


Dixon, Don
McNamara, Kevin


Dobson, Frank
McWilliam, John


Doran, Frank
Madden, Max


Douglas, Dick
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Duffy, A. E. P,
Marek, Dr John


Dunnachie, James
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Eadie, Alexander
Martin, Michael (Springburn)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Martlew, Eric


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Maxton, John


Fatchett, Derek
Meacher, Michael


Fearn, Ronald
Meale, Alan


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Michael, Alun


Fisher, Mark
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flannery, Martin
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Flynn, Paul
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Foster, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fraser, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis






Morgan, Rhodri
Skinner, Dennis


Morley, Elliott
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)
Snape, Peter


Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie
Soley, Clive


Mullin, Chris
Spearing, Nigel


Murphy, Paul
Steel, Rt Hon David


Nellist, Dave
Stott, Roger


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Strang, Gavin


O'Brien, William
Straw, Jack


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Pendry, Tom
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Pike, Peter
Turner, Dennis


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Vaz, Keith


Prescott, John
Wall, Pat


Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Wallace, James


Quin, Ms Joyce
Walley, Ms Joan


Radice, Giles
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Randall, Stuart
Wareing, Robert N.


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Reid, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Richardson, Ms Jo
Wigley, Dafydd


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Robertson, George
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wilson, Brian


Rogers, Allan
Winnick, David


Rooker, Jeff
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Worthington, Anthony


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wray, James


Salmond, Alex
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sedgemore, Brian



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Ken Eastham.


Short, Clare





NOES


Adley, Robert
Butcher, John


Alexander, Richard
Butler, Chris


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amos, Alan
Carrington, Matthew


Arbuthnot, James
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cash, William


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Chapman, Sydney


Aspinwall, Jack
Churchill, Mr


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Batiste, Spencer
Conway, Derek


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bendall, Vivian
Cope, John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cormack, Patrick


Benyon, W.
Couchman, James


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cran, James


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Critchley, Julian


Body, Sir Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Curry, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Boswell, Tim
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Peter
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Devlin, Tim


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dicks, Terry


Bowis, John
Dorrell, Stephen


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dover, Den


Brazier, Julian
Dunn, Bob


Bright, Graham
Durant, Tony


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Eggar, Tim


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp;Cl't's)
Emery, Sir Peter


Browne, John (Winchester)
Evennett, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Fallon, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Farr, Sir John


Budgen, Nicholas
Favell, Tony


Burns, Simon
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Burt, Alistair
Fookes, Miss Janet





Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacGregor, John


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maclean, David


Fox, Sir Marcus
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


French, Douglas
Madel, David


Fry, Peter
Major, Rt Hon John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Malins, Humfrey


Gill, Christopher
Mans, Keith


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maples, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marland, Paul


Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gow, Ian
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mates, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maude, Hon Francis


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gregory, Conal
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grylls, Michael
Miller, Hal


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Miscampbell, Norman


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hanley, Jeremy
Moate, Roger


Hannam, John
Monro, Sir Hector


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Harris, David
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Haselhurst, Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Hawkins, Christopher
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hayes, Jerry
Mudd, David


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Neale, Gerrard


Hayward, Robert
Needham, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neubert, Michael


Heddle, John
Newton, Tony


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Hind, Kenneth
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Page, Richard


Holt, Richard
Paice, James


Hordern, Sir Peter
Pawsey, James


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Portillo, Michael


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Raffan, Keith


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Irvine, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Irving, Charles
Rowe, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Janman, Timothy
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield/


Key, Robert
Speller, Tony


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Squire, Robin


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kirkhope, Timothy
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Knapman, Roger
Stevens, Lewis


Knox, David
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lang, Ian
Sumberg, David


Latham, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Lawrence, Ivan
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Taylor, lan (Esher)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lilley, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich Nj


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Thorne, Neil






Thornton, Malcolm
Wheeler, John


Thurnham, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Trippier, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Trotter, Neville
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Nicholas


Viggers, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Wood, Timothy


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Waldegrave, Hon William



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Noes:


Walters, Dennis
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Alan Howarth.


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)



Warren, Kenneth

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERforthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House commends the success of the Government's economic strategy which has so transformed the climate for enterprise; applauds its policy of lifting burdens on business; notes that confidence among businessmen is high and sustained; and believes that British producers and exporters are as a result in a strong position to compete effectively in international markets.

Health and Safety

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That this House, noting that Government policies of deregulation and continual cutbacks in the Health and Safety Inspectorate have contributed to an increase in the death and major injury rate of workers in manufacturing and construction by more than a third over the last six years, and noting too that the Government 's persistent policy of putting profits before safety underlies recent civil disasters, and that the present collapse of health and safety provision under the weight of the growth of new hazards, ever fewer inspections and inadequate penalties threatens the lives of workers and public alike, calls upon the Government to reverse the 20 per cent. cut in the Health and Safety Inspectorate, to stop privatisation that puts health and safety at risk and to ensure that all employers provide adequate occupational health and safety services, and to provide funding that acknowledges that worker and user safety is a necessity and not a luxury that can be sacrificed.
The King's Cross fire, the public inquiry into which has now opened, has focused the eyes of the nation on the dangerous cutback in health and safety provisions, that is steadily pushing up the rate of death and serious injury at work. It is already clear, whatever the precise cause of the fire, that the disaster would have been preventable if only essential and elementary safety precautions had not been neglected. It is clear that lessons learned from previous tube station fires have not been applied and staff have not been adequately trained. It is clear too that similar death-trap conditions, now revealed throughout the tube network, mean that such a disaster could have occurred just as readily elsewhere in the Underground system and could happen again at any time. What must cause most concern is that all of these warnings apply equally to much of the health and safety.
The King's Cross disaster, like the Zeebrugge disaster some months earlier, which was equally preventable, made headlines because many people were killed in a single, highly visible, national tragedy. Yet in the past year, 700 people have died at work—that is an average of two every day; 20,000 major accidents have occurred at work which have led to people being seriously disabled; there have been 70,000 cases of disabling occupational diseases; and over 500,000 minor but expensive and painful accidents have occurred at work. That annual carnage has gone almost unnoticed. It is seldom mentioned because it is fragmented, occurring all over the country, and it is regarded somehow as an inevitable consequence of work hazards. That view is wholly misplaced.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Would my hon. Friend agree that a great percentage of those accidents occur in the construction industry, which has the worst record of any industry? Ordinary workers, who go to work every day expecting to do a day's work and go home safe, are either killed or maimed. Is it not time that the Government did something to improve the factories inspectorate, instead of the other way around?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend, to his great credit, is a persistent advocate of better conditions and greater safety in the construction industry. He is right that of the dangerous industries—construction, agriculture, chemicals and textiles in manufacturing—construction is the most dangerous and has the highest number of deaths. It is correct that construction sites in London have recently been the subject of a blitz by the chief inspector and many


prohibitions have had to be imposed because of the failure to take elementary precautions at an unprecedented rate. My hon. Friend has made a strong point, and I hope that the Government will respond.
There is a view that somehow the roll call of death and serious injury is an inevitable consequence of work hazards, but it is not, because the factory inspectorate's surveys have shown repeatedly that seven out of eight fatal accidents could have been prevented, and two out of three deaths are blamed firmly on inadequate health and safety management. A few recent and, I fear, typical cases will illustrate those facts better than any statistics. I refer to two cases reported inSafety Managementmagazine last month:
A fine of£1,500 was imposed on the Blue Circle Cement company after an accident in which a worker was killed by a fast-moving conveyor belt.
The company
admitted to a charge made under section 14(1) of the Factories Act, in that they had failed securely to guard the machinery.
I refer to another case, which again is nothing exceptional:
A … construction worker plunged to his death from an aerial dish when his employers failed to maintain a safe place of work.
The company
admitted the charge under Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, 1974, and were fined £750 with £65 costs.
I shall briefly quote three other wholly typical recent cases that show just how low the price of a life at work is now regarded. A 21-year-old was killed by fumes from fire in ICI's fertiliser plant at Teesside. The company was fined £2,000 earlier this year. An 18-year-old apprentice was killed when his clothing dragged him into an unguarded lathe. The company was fined £250. A 16-year-old was killed by fumes from the sludge that he was cleaning out of a tank. The company was fined £500. A labourer died in an unsupported trench when the sides caved in. In 1982, the company allowed another man to be killed in exactly the same way and was fined £1,150. The second death in the same circumstances earlier this year cost it just£5,000.
The Opposition have called the debate because the health and safety situation is fast deteriorating. Since 1981, the fatal and serious accident rate at work has reversed its long-term downward trend and has risen every year since, and it is still rising. In manufacturing, it is 35 per cent. higher than it was six years ago, and in construction it is more than 40 per cent. higher than it was six years ago.
What is responsible for the annually rising roll call of death and serious injury at work? Unquestionably, the prime responsibility lies with the Government's policies of deregulation and continual cuts in the health and safety inspectorate, which is now overstretched and understaffed and is suffering a major morale crisis.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I shall finish this section of my remarks and then give way.
In 1979, the factory inspectorate numbered 742. It is now down to 602. That represents a cut of nearly 20 per cent. On average, registered workplaces now get a visit from a factory inspector once every 12 years. By comparison, before the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974, the average was once every four years. Indeed, firms employing fewer than 25 persons are virtually left to their own devices, without any visits at all, even though small firms are notoriously recognised to be far more accident-prone.
In a radio broadcast this morning on the subject, the Secretary of State said that more resources are available and more visits are being made. He is wrong on both counts. Since 1981, the number of annual visits has dropped by over 10 per cent. The number of investigated incidents has dropped by 34 per cent. The number of notices served by the inspectorate has dropped by 13 per cent., yet the number of known infringements has risen by 11 per cent.
On resources, I can do no better than quote the words of one of the Secretary of State's own inspectors, who recently left. I shall quote from an interview in the Health and Safety at Workmagazine of February this year. She said:
I did not leave because of the money I left because I was becoming more and more dissatisfied.
We were given more work and more laws to enforce without the resources to do it. It meant that we could not provide the services to industry which it expected. We were constantly in demand and at the same time criticised by companies about our slowness in being able to react.
Not a day went past without colleagues discussing, as a fairly major item, the state of things, the fact that they could not get things done. We were hearing about people who had applied for jobs elsewhere, people who were leaving. In the last couple of years the numbers who have left have been unprecedented… Before we had even got to investigate one particular bad accident, something worse had happened so we would have to go out and deal with that one. And the others started sliding.
There was a number of accidents which I felt very strongly should have been investigated. One has the experience which tells that the accident was just the tip of the iceberg. And the next time you get a phone call from that factory it is because a much more serious accident has happened. The first time it might have been the tip of a woman's finger, the next time it is the hand that has been chopped off.
That sort of pressure was causing people problems because they knew that if they could get to the workplaces soon enough they could prevent things getting worse.
It is depressing, de-motivating and morale was falling.
Those are the words of an inspector who left either at the end of last year or earlier this year.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): The hon. Gentleman spoke about resources. I thought that he would do so at some stage. In our earlier debate today, I made the point that in 1978–79 in real terms, at 1987–88 prices the last Labour Government spent £98·5 million on the Health and Safety Executive. This year, the amount has been increased to £102 million in real terms. Next year, it is to go up to £104·5 million in real terms. Therefore, how does he justify his claim that we have cut provision?

Mr. Meacher: Easily; by two considerations to which I shall draw attention more fully later, but I do not mind stating them now. First, large workplaces have often been fragmented, and there are now many more smaller workplaces that are more difficult to regulate and need more inspectors' time. Secondly, in the recent period, the Government passed a series of new regulations that require a substantial increase in the number of inspectors and inspectorial time to carry them out. I shall come to that matter. I persist in saying that there has not been an increase in resources, there has been a reduction. Otherwise, how does one explain the detailed statement that was made by the disillusioned inspector to whom I referred?

Mr. Fowler: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government are spending not less but more than the last Labour Government did?

Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State must not avoid the key point. More resources are needed for the tasks at hand. If such tasks have enormously increased, the fact that the real terms sum has increased slightly is a wholly inadequate answer. The amount of resources has not increased, it has fallen.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that resources are much thinner? On the Government's own figures, between 1979, the last year of the Labour Government and the current year, there has been a reduction in the general and specialist inspectorate of no fewer than 128 people. That represents a massive reduction, when the total has never exceeded 1,000 and the inspectorate is the backbone in carrying out the safety legislation that the House of Commons passes.

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend has re-emphasised my point. Across the board, the number of inspectors has been reduced. It is nearly 20 per cent. below the 1979 level. Personnel on the ground are the ones who count.

Mr. McLoughlin: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not generalise so much. I refer him to British Coal's record. Coal mining is most certainly a dangerous industry. In 1978–79, the rate of fatalities per 100,000 man shifts was about 0·13. During the last year of the board's report, the figure was 0·05. The hon. Gentleman should not generalise, because there is no generalised picture. Regardless of how many inspectors leave, the individual looks after his own safety at the workplace.

Mr. Meacher: The number of inspectors is still a key point. I listened attentively to the hon. Gentleman's statistics, which are based on one way of regarding the accident rate. There are other ways of regarding that rate —some of us think they are more accurate—which do not reveal that pattern but which show that, if anything, matters have got slightly worse. However, I do not want to be sidetracked into discussing one industry, because every industry has problems.
The Government's response, which the Secretary of State will no doubt echo tonight, is that they propose to allocate a further £6·7 million to the health and safety inspectorate for next year. I must make it clear that, while we welcome any improvement, however modest, this is insufficient even to halt the present decline, let alone to contribute to restoring the 1979 position. The Health and Safety Commission sought £3 million for the current year; it was given £1 million. It sought £9 million for next year and it is to get £6·7 million.
It is the number of staff that really counts. As a result of the new money, the Health and Safety Commission now hopes to staff the whole inspectorate—which goes much wider than just the factories inspectorate —to a new ceiling of 3,620 next year. That will not even take staffing back to its level at the start of last year when the figure was 3,655. It will come nowhere near to returning staffing to its level in 1979, when the last Labour Government left it at 4,200.
Furthermore, the Government's £6·7 million does not take account of the extra resources needed to meet new commitments. When the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act was passed in 1974, it was agreed on both sides of the

House that to cope with the new work that was foreseen—in hospitals, in promoting public safety and for the self-employed—it would be necessary to increase the number of staff in the inspectorate to 4,400. Since then, there have been two important developments, to which I have already referred.
First, we have many more small, fragmented workplaces which require more inspectors' time. Secondly, and perhaps even more important, the inspectorate has many new commitments which were not foreseen in 1974. As the Secretary of State must be aware, 28 new sets of health and safety regulations have been enacted since that date. The most important of them include the control of major industrial accident hazards, the road tanker regulations, the asbestos licensing regulations, the Food and Environment Protection Act and the gas safety regulations. Moreover, new technology continues to create every more complex and dangerous substances and processes, especially—

Mr. William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: In a moment. The hazards arise especially from the nuclear industry and agricultural pesticides.
Without full protection, workers become industry's guinea pigs. Increasingly, the public, too, expect to be protected from dangers—from cowboy asbestos removers, construction site accidents, chemical plant explosions and hazardous fumes. It is obvious that the 3,620 staff —the ceiling that the Government seem proud to be reaching next year with their new money—falls far short of the level needed to fulfil the statutory duties on the Health and Safety Commission that Parliament deems necessary for the protection of our people.

Mr. Cash: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he might add to that list the Health and Safety Executive's regulations with regard to human genetic engineering, and that the proposal that the powers should be transferred from the Council of Ministers to the Commission must be resisted? Is he further aware that the Legionnaires' disease inquiry report, which came out this afternoon, shows the Government's strong commitment to ensuring that people are properly looked after in hospitals? Following the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), the right hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and me, the Government last year abolished Crown immunity. That is yet another example of the Government's commitment to the preservation of health and safety. The Government have a very good record in all these respects.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has succeeded only in compiling a longer list of the regulations that the Government have been happy to pass. However, rather like the Athenian democracy of old, they do not provide the resources to carry out the requirements. Such regulations become fairly worthless if one does not provide the necessary resources. Clearly, the Health and Safety Executive and the commission do not believe that they are getting the necessary resources.
The effects of the Government's cuts are both direct and indirect. The most direct effect is that the inspectorate now investigates fewer than 10 per cent. of reported


accidents, whereas in the past all complaints were investigated. However, there is a more insidious effect. By back-door deregulation through continuous cuts in their own inspectorate, by shifting some of the responsibility to local authorities and insurance companies and by allowing more and more employers to self-regulate without health and safety inspections, the Government are signalling to industry that safety standards are being downgraded and that profitability now overrides health and safety. I am not saying that the Government are unconcerned about safety. I am saying that they are far too concerned about profits and their privatisation goals to let their concern about safety stand in their way. The same message is transmitted by the infrequent inspections, rare prosecutions and derisory penalties.
If the Government put such a low value on enforcing health and safety regulations, why should not employers do the same? The Government like to consider themselves a law and order Government. That is why they have built up the police force to investigate, deter and punish law breakers in the community. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Indeed. By the same token, the Government's indifference to investigating, deterring and punishing law breakers in respect of the health and safety regulations in industry is manifest in their building down of their health and safety inspectorate. If business men get that message, the Government alone are to blame. There is an unmistakeable link between apathy and the absence of properly policed laws.

Mr. Ian McCartney: My hon. Friend talked about the transfer of responsibility to local government, and I have two points to make on that. First, responsibility for petroleum licensing has been transferred to the fire and civil defence authorities, as has the responsibility for regulations governing on-site and off-site plans for large industrial installations which have problems in relation to explosives and hazardous substances. Secondly, while transferring those responsibilities from the Health and Safety Executive to local government, the Government have rate-capped the very authorities that they have asked to provide resources to police the arrangements. If the Government do not lift their expenditure proposals for Greater Manchester by 1 January next year, some 90 uniformed staff, most of them involved in policing the arrangements, will be lost and there will be a freeze in recruitment.

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend speaks with great authority and knowledge about the fire service. He is right that by transferring responsibilities from the Health and Safety Executive to local authorities, while at the same time penalising and limiting those authorities' resources, the Government are engaging in a form of surreptitious deregulation with consequences to which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) will refer at greater length if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
If industry sees Government persistently scrimping, and paring away their own inspectorate and continually stressing cost-cutting privatisations at the expense of standards, and if it sees a regulatory net that is now so loosely cast that the offending fish virtually have to volunteer to be caught, the tragic drip, drip of deaths, maimings and injuries will continue to grow, as it has for the past six years.
The Government are intending to expand their approach to health and safety still further. In the White Paper "Lifting Burdens", they said—it was repeated in another White Paper, "Building Businesses, Not Barriers;"—that they would raise the threshold for the requirement to prepare written safety policies from five employees to 20. At a stroke, that will exempt the majority of companies from the requirement to produce a company safety policy. Yet written policies and procedures are the essence of good health and safety management.
The Government, in particular the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, cannot seem to understand that they are starting from the wrong premise. Small firms do not consider health and safety inspections a burden. They do not want deregulation. They want more help, not less—after all, it is given free—to learn how to prevent and tackle uncontrolled hazards, accidents and health damage to their work force. Employers understand all too well the cost of occupational accidents and ill health—that cost represents anything from 2 per cent. to 15 per cent. of the wage bill, depending on a company's record.
If only the Government equally well understood the cost to the community. One hundred million working days are lost through occupationally induced sickness and ill health, at a cost of more than £4,000 million a year. Most of that cost is borne by the NHS and the taxpayer. Those figures are from the Government's own Health and Safety Executive estimates. Surely, against such a huge cost to employers and the community, such savings on health and safety inspections can be seen to be a massive false economy.
It is time to call a halt to the slide in health and safety standards. It is time to stop deregulation by the back door, whereby companies can flout the law without fear of detection. Indeed, even if companies are prosecuted—it is rare—last year the average fine was £475: a penalty that is so derisory that many regard it as a 'nod and a wink' to continue breaking the law.
It is time that the Government's leaders set an example What message is sent to industry when one of the Government's Whips, Lord Hesketh, was recently fined £850 for failing to protect his employees from cancer-causing arsenic in a timber treatment pesticide? That offence is similar to one for which an American director was recently gaoled.
It is no good the Secretary of State telling us, as I am sure he will—he did so this morning—that he is increasing funds for the health and safety inspectorate by £6·7 million when, at the same time, the Home Secretary is demanding a £24 million cut in fire brigade spending for next year. It is no good the Secretary of State telling us that health and safety resources are being used more efficiently when, at the same time, the London fire authority is receiving no block grant because its grant-related expenditure is too far below maximum expenditure levels.
I submit that a Government who cut any of the critical public services that I have mentioned in the interest of greater private profit are neglecting the fundamental duty of Government to protect their citizens. This morning the Secretary of State said that he did not want health and safety to become a party political issue. Nor do we. However, it will depend on whether Government policies reflects the fact that health and safety is not a residual, not a desirable to be paid for if there is some money left over, not a luxury to be sacrificed, but an absolute necessity. It


is because Government policies do not reflect that — indeed, they reflect the reverse — that we are pressing this motion tonight.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, to leave out from "House" to end and add:
noting the Government's policy for replacing outmoded legislation with a new regime which maintains or improves health and safety standards tailored to modern needs, recognises that the prime responsibility for the reduction of accidents to workers lies with the employers, employees and others at the workplace; acknowledges the regulatory and other work of the Health and Safety Commission; and welcomes the Government's support for the Health and Safety Commission's efforts in the field of health and safety at work and in the community.".
I do not accept a number of things that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has said. I do not accept that the Health and Safety Commission is underfunded or has been underfunded. In fact, funding is higher in real terms than that provided by the previous Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman's inability to answer that point directly was clear to the House. I do not accept the death and accident figures that the hon. Gentleman has set out, nor do I accept his earlier assertions regarding occupation-related ill health. I do not accept that the only criteria for judging policy are resources, money, and the number of inspectors. That judgment leaves out the crucial responsibility that individual employers and employees must accept.
I believe that it is absurd to suggest that, in some way, the private sector has a worse record regarding health and safety than the public sector. There is absolutely no evidence to support that.

Mr. Meacher: I did not say that.

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but will he also concede that many private companies have an outstanding record of concern and success with regard to health and safety? I wish to set out what the Government are planning to spend, the number of new inspectors that we intend to appoint and touch on the latest figures, to be published later this month, on deaths and injuries.
At the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, I welcomed the fact that he accepted that there is a degree of common ground. I believe that that should exist between the main parties regarding this issue. In the past there has always been a substantial element of common ground based on a genuine, shared concern and on a spirit of positive and constructive co-operation. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is an outstanding example of that common ground and co-operation. That legislation was drawn up and drafted by a Conservative Government and was put on to the statute book by an incoming Labour Government. So there has been a history of bi-partisan co-operation—and rightly so.
Health and safety is an issue of vast complexity, affecting so much of modern life. Work sites vary from factories to farms, offices to building sites, coal mines and nuclear power stations. As well as normal work site safety, the Government and the Health and Safety Commission have to consider the way dangerous goods are packaged and transported, ensure that staff are not subject to

violence at work, and take account of a wide range of issues such as AIDS and genetic manipulation. As well as considering people at work, we also have to consider the public who might also be affected by industrial accidents. So the Government's task is to make sure that our health and safety arrangements are fitted to cope with the needs of a modern society and a changing and expanding economy.
The key to dealing with those changes is set out clearly in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. That places a duty, first and foremost, upon those at the work place — employers, the self-employed, employees and others. Against a background of so much change and complexity it is only they who can be sufficiently familiar with their working systems and on the spot, to identify when things are going wrong and put them right. That is a fundamental point that we must always remember whenever we talk about what the Government can, or inspectors should, do about health and safety. We can foster the right approach and inspectors can push, encourage and advise — but the foremost responsibility rests with those at the front line, working at the work place. They have to be helped, not only by inspectors, but by the full resources of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive in setting standard; assessing new substances and hazardous installations; giving medical advice; and advising on the practical steps needed to achieve better health and safety.
Clearly, the Government recognise the essential role of inspectors. I fully support their vigorous approach. Unfortunately, sometimes that is the only way to ensure that those in the front line carry out their responsibilities. Last year, factory and agricultural inspectors made more than 200,000 visits. In the course of those visits they issued some 4,300 enforcement notices, initiated over 2,000 prosecutions and set in train many thousands of improvements by means of written or verbal instructions.
But standards are not improved simply by picking off the worst. It is also important that the Health and Safety Executive carries out its advisory work as well. While it is unfortunately true that a small number of employers may take short cuts on health and safety, we should remember that when most employers transgress it is out of ignorance, not malice, and that it is much more effective to give advice than to have to pick up the pieces after an accident has occurred.
It is for this reason that great emphasis has been placed on the publication of guidance booklets. We have issued something like 4 million in the past 12 months, and one particular booklet to be published next spring will bring together a complete package of health and safety advice for small firms and for those setting up in business for the first time. Getting the message across is not easy and success reflects the close understanding that the Health and Safety Commission has of the needs and difficulties in industry. Health and safety, therefore, is not just a question of more money and more inspectors. It is also a question of giving advice and encouraging people to accept that advice.
The Government seek also to ensure that the commission has the resources that it needs to do its job. During a period when we have sought to improve efficiency and value for money in all parts of the public service, we have ensured that the commission's provision in real terms has always been as good as that made by the last Labour Administration. Indeed, for most of the period


it has been better. We are also always receptive to any approach from the commission and during this year we have increased its resource provision; with Parliament's approval we shall do so again in the Winter Supplementary Estimates.
Next year, as the hon. Gentleman has conceded, total funding will increase by £6·7 million compared with the previous White Paper provision for 1988–89. This represents an increase of 6·7 per cent. on expected expenditure. The chairman of the commission has welcomed this increase and confirmed that it will enable the executive to increase the number of inspctors. Moreover, through their own internal arrangements to improve efficiency and effectiveness, the executive now gets considerably more value for money from its resources. For example, inspectors no longer make their calls on a simple periodic basis. Each workplace is now assessed and given a rating. This means that where there are real problems, or where there is potential for things to go badly wrong, as at chemical sites for example, there are more regular vistis than under the old regime.
Let me set out what has been achieved in recent years. First, and very important, in the area of ill health caused by occupational exposure to dusts and chemicals, the achievements of recent years have been very substantial. Illness due to exposure to materials such as lead is now virtually a thing of the past. Although people are still developing asbestos-related diseases, this is the grim heritage of past mistakes and previous lack of knowledge, whereas our standards now should mean that we are not storing up problems for the future. No one who visits our industries and goes out into our factories can help but notice the sophisticated exhaust systems, the enclosed cabinets and the automatic dispensing units, all of which keep workers protected from chemicals.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is he saying that, for example, asbestos strippers are subject to qualification and examination by the commission or is it the case that for £50 any cowboy can get a licence and set to work? Is it not true that people have recently been prosecuted because of their cowboy activities when dismantling power stations in Yorkshire?

Mr. Fowler: I will look at the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he would concede my central point, which is that ill health caused by occupational exposure has been dramatically reduced rather than dramatically increased. These improvements have been reinforced by new regulations, for example on asbestos, lead, and ionising radiation. The forthcoming regulations on noise will make a huge difference to the quality of life for many people. And, perhaps most important, there are the proposed Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations, which I look forward to receiving in the spring.
I believe that when people look back at this era, they will say that this decade has been, and is continuing to be, one of the great milestones in health and safety. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act was hugely important, but it was also an enabling Act, under which the original and continuing intention was to modernise, rationalise and improve the earlier regulations in health and safety. The hon. Member for Oldham, West is confusing deregulation with reform. He seems at times to prefer the old legislation, made piecemeal from the mid-19th century

onwards, which the commission is steadily and vitally replacing by a new regime tailored to modern hazards and modern needs. In addition to those I have just mentioned, new regulations for major hazards, the notification of new substances and the safe transport and packaging of hazardous materials, cover subjects which were previously untouched.
In the area of major hazards, this country now has the most sophisticated controls in western Europe—in our regulations for notification, in the Control of Major Accident Hazard Regulations, and in our planning arrangements. At the same time we have been removing outdated and burdensome requirements. For instance, the 1987 Safety in Harbours Regulations replaced some 280 byelaws, which were often more appropriate to a bygone age and enormously complicated for vessels to comply with as they moved from port to port and found different requirements in each.
All new proposals are subject to cost-benefit analysis. The new legislation is better, more flexible and more responsive to industry's needs, and better reflects modern conditions. Nonetheless, standards have in all cases been strictly maintained and we are laying down a framework for health and safety which carry this country into the next century and which will match or better that of any other country in the world.
On the subject of fatal and serious accidents, I am now able to give the House the most up-to-date figures, which the commission will publish later this month. The total number of fatal accidents to all employees and the self-employed last year was 390, which is the lowest figure on record. With the possible exception of the Netherlands, our fatal accident rate is lower than that of any other member of the European Community, or any other leading country. Clearly I am concerned at the increase in injuries resulting from accidents recorded in the period to 1985, but again there are hopeful signs. The latest figures, to be published later this month, seem to indicate that these have now levelled off, and naturally our objective is to bring them down.
On the question of deaths caused by occupation-related ill health, there can be no comprehensive figures. We know of some of these deaths from a number of sources, but inevitably many go unreported. What I can say quite categorically, drawing on the expert opinion available, is that there has been a vast improvement over the years in this area and that this improvement continues. Also, many of the deaths which now occur reflect exposure to hazardous substances long ago.
I would like to refer briefly to the tragic events at King's Cross, to which the hon. Gentleman referred at the beginning of his speech. The Government have announced that they will be making a contribution of £250,000 to the King's Cross disaster fund in the hope that this will encourage others to join in helping the bereaved and those who suffered. This will in no way affect any claims for compensation. Immediately after the fire, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced a formal investigation under the Railways Act, and one of the team of four assessors will be Dr. Roberts of the Health and Safety Executive. The findings will be made public. I hope that the House will agree that it would be premature and unwise to speculate on the cause or the contributory factors before the formal investigation has completed its task and report. If there are found to be any


shortcomings in safety practice or procedures, they will of course be pursued vigorously by London Regional Transport and the Government.
At this stage, however, I should remind the House that since 1984 the Government have approved substantial year-on-year increases in investment in the Underground, rising from £135 million in 1985·86 to £199 million this year. Investment will exceed £200 million next year and much of it is aimed at renewing and modernising the system and thereby enhancing safety. The renewal of lifts and escalators accounts for some £15 million a year and, in addition, specific expenditure of some £5 million annually is allocated for health and safety purposes such as fire prevention measures.

Mr. Ian McCartney: The day before the tragic fire at King's Cross, a meeting which I and my colleagues from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities fire services committee were due to have was cancelled by the noble Lord the Earl of Caithness. We were to discuss the financing arrangements for the London fire brigade and others. Will the right hon. Gentleman help to rearrange that meeting, so that urgent consideration can be given to the fact that the London fire and civil defence authority will have to consider the loss of hundreds of uniformed staff which, against the background of the tragedy at King's Cross and the death of the fireman there, will be wholly unacceptable? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices with the Home Secretary to make sure that that meeting takes place as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Fowler: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about that and I shall certainly undertake to pass on what he has said to the Home Office Minister concerned and see what can be arranged.
I have dealt with the past record but I entirely accept that no one should be remotely complacent about the health and safety position. The aim must be to improve the position further—to reduce deaths and injuries. Let me tell the House of four major objectives that we are pursuing.
First, the extra resources that are being made available will mean that the commission can recruit new staff. As compared with the present, it will have 40 more factory and agriculture inspectors in post next year — the maximum additional number that the executive can take in and train in one year. It will also be able to recruit additional numbers of other specialists and inspectors to carry out the other activities that I have outlined. Altogether, the executive will have 100 more staff next year than its present strength.
Secondly, inspectors will be concentrating more on targeted inspections and investigations. These will be focused where they are most needed—where the risk is high; where standards are poor; where management control is weak. In other words, we are seeking to prevent problems before they occur, rather than reacting to them.
Thirdly, we are adjusting the pattern of our inspections to accord with modern industrial conditions. Our inspectors will be concentrating next year particularly on small firms and construction. The factories inspectorate will enhance its programmes to identify new, small companies. The Government do, of course, expect the same levels of safety from small firms as they do from

larger ones. Many small firms achieve high standards off their own bat, but others need the help and advice of the Executive.

Mr. Meacher: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, despite those improvements in working techniques, which I am sure are welcome, and the increases in the numbers that he has given, the 40 extra factory and agricultural inspectors next year compares with a cut since 1979 of more than 140? Does he further agree that the increase in the overall inspectorate of 100 compares with a cut since 1979 of about 600?

Mr. Fowler: There has certainly been, as I said this morning, a reduction in the number of inspectors, but at the same time the ratio of the number of inspectors per thousand employers has not only remained stable during the period of this Government but has shown an improvement on some of the periods in the 1970s.
Special attention will also be given to construction; indeed, about one fifth of the factories inspectorate will concentrate full time on construction. The series of blitzes, in which inspectors work in teams from street to street, concentrating at different times upon different parts of the country, will continue. That will be backed up with publicity with the aim of getting the message across, to employers and employees alike, that they have to put safety right in their industry.
We shall, with the HSC, be keeping a careful watch and consultation is planned for new regulations to provide for better coordination between contractors; to require more safety officers on site; and to require more construction work to be notified to the executive. In addition, we intend to introduce regulations, for which a consultative document has been issued, which will require safety helmets to be worn by law.
Fourthly, the nuclear installations inspectorate is also being strengthened. Nuclear safety policy is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but it is from my Department that nuclear inspectors are funded, as part of the Health and Safety Executive. To encourage recruitment, we have substantially increased the salaries on offer, which has led to a very successful recruitment campaign. This will give the commission a record 120 nuclear inspectors, which is what they asked for, and of the quality that they want.
Health and safety is a vital matter; clearly, on that I share the concern of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. It is something that should concern all of us day in, day out, week after week, year after year. It is an area where genuine co-operation is needed between Government and industry. The record has been good. We have sustained the Health and Safety Executive by ensuring that it was properly funded and by making it more efficient and more effective. We have gone out and put over the message that health and safety is vital and that we can offer employers advice on good practice and methods of protection.
However, we do not believe that inspectors and inspections alone can improve health and safety. Health and safety can be improved only by a framework of good law and the recognition that safety in the workplace is the direct responsibility of individual employers and employees. It is the responsibility of everyone in this country, and our aim must be to improve the position still further.

Mr. Terry Fields: The measures and increases that the Secretary of State has talked about, minimal though they be, are indeed welcome. But putting legislation on the statute book is one thing; implementing it is another. It is a condemnation of society in general that it takes a tragedy such as the King's Cross fire before we can debate such serious matters in the Chamber.
We need to remind the House that over the years the introduction of fire safety regulations has been in response to particularly serious fires which have usually resulted in large loss of life. The Factories Act 1961 resulted from a fire in a factory in Keighley in Yorkshire in 1956 when eight deaths occurred. The Office, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 was the result of a fire at Henderson's store in Liverpool in 1960, when 11 deaths occurred. The Licensing Act 1964 resulted from a fire at the Top Storey club in Bolton in 1961, when 19 deaths occurred.
As a result of the report of the Holroyd committee in 1970 and the increasing number of serious hotel fires, the Fire Precautions Act 1971 was introduced. As a result of the Ibrox Park tragedy in 1972, when 66 football supporters lost their lives, the Safety at Sports Grounds Act 1975 was introduced. Perhaps legislation will follow from the King's Cross tragedy.
Why do we need tragedies and the loss of life before Governments of all complexions act on behalf of the general public? For my union, the Fire Brigades Union, it was indefensible that the Government had to wait for a tragedy such as that witnessed in Bradford before introducing legislation to cover all places of public assembly.
Tonight's debate takes place in the shadow of the tragedy at King's Cross. It precedes the King's Cross inquiry and is set against the background, to which my hon. Friends have referred, of cuts in the fire service, which will affect the ability of fire prevention officers and departments adequately to look after the health and safety not only of firemen but of members of the general public, under the various pieces of legislation to which I have just referred. The inquiry will take place against a background of the Government's continuing to attack the fire service through their intention further to reduce expenditure, which will affect standards of fire cover and fire prevention departments that already cannot cope with the requirements of public safety.
The nature of the tragedies and the inadequacy of some of the legislation was brought home by a fire in Sheffield in 1984. The fire in Brightside lane burned for six days and involved 630 fire fighters. It practically destroyed a massive warehouse, causing £20 million worth of damage. In February, the Health and Safety Executive said that no prosecution would be brought in connection with the Brightside fire in Sheffield, even though many individuals, as well as the fire authority, were open to criticism for it. The executive reported that, as far as individuals were concerned, it had only been a normal fire fighting incident, and no extra inquiry was required. It took the vigilance of a member of my union — Terry Smith, the branch secretary of the FBU—to report that more than 100 fire fighters were suffering from ill effects, 60 of whom were still suffering six weeks after the fire.
Pressures from press publicity, and not from the Health and Safety Executive — it was stretched anyway — and

pressure from the Fire Brigades Union moved the then Minister with responsibility for such matters, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), to ask the Health and Safety Executive to carry out a full investigation. It found gaps in the abilities of the inspectors to look after their own premises. The executive found that the warehouse had not been visited since 1980, four years before the accident. It found that the fire brigade that had the responsibility under the Fire Services Act 1947 to obtain necessary information about the building for fire-fighting purposes had visited it only six years before the incident took place.
There is much to be criticised in the back-up that is necessary after incidents of this kind, particularly in relation to the effects on firemen and the monitoring of the fire's ill effects. It was found that large quantities of asbestos released by the fire had not been deposited because the day was snowy and damp, but that, if the day had been dry, asbestos fibres would have been in the air. The men went in without breathing apparatus—despite the fact that it was available.
Asbestos has already been mentioned. Nobody knows what levels of the chemical are safe. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), then Minister with responsibility for health and safety, said in 1983:
We must therefore assume that a single fibre of asbestos could do real damage which may not be seen for about 20 years or more.
That is the prospect for so many who work in the building industry, the construction industry and the fire service.
On top of the inadequacies in the Health and Safety Executive's attempts to look after the interests of the general public and workers, there is now a review of the Fire Precautions Act 1971. My union, along with many other organisations, is distinctly worried about the present moves of the Government. They are intent on lifting the burden of fire prevention — as they see it — from industry. That will lead to increased losses from fire, and more damage and deaths. A document sets out the proposals, which have been designed in such a way as to provide a new method of fire prevention, using the self-regulation process, aided by flexibility on the part of fire authorities in monitoring standards. There have been examples of flexibility in the construction industry. The Health and Safety Executive has shown that, when profitability in the construction industry is set against self-regulation, there is unfortunately no contest. Profitability will always win the battle.
There is talk in the fire brigades of privatising certain sections—including fire prevention—which will mean a deterioration in the service. Her Majesty's inspectorate should have a complement of between 12 and 13 inspectors, but it lacks five of those. Instead of carrying out their traditional role of examining the efficiency of individual services, the inspectors who are doing investigations around the country are carrying out exercises at the Government's behest to discover how to cut jobs in the fire service. That culminated a short time ago in Wales, where, because of a threat of industrial action, a local authority sacked the whole fire service in south Wales. That is what the Government's cost cutting is about. My union—the Fire Brigades Union—will not co-operate with inspectors who try to cut jobs in the fire service.
On Friday last, the nation mourned. I am not ashamed to say that I cried, too, when I saw my comrades in uniform on the streets of London at the funeral of that brave fireman. We mourned then, but today we have from the Government a report that 800 jobs are due to go in the same London fire service that we applauded for its courage and heroism last Friday. In west Yorkshire, south Yorkshire, the west Midlands and on Merseyside, fire brigade jobs will go. It is estimated that between 2,000 and 3,000 firemen's jobs will be lost.
The lesson for firemen is that no section of society is immune from the economics of this Tory Government and the cuts that flow from their policies. The devastating effects of the cuts in the fire service will be seen increasingly — God forbid — in more King's Cross-type tragedies, deaths and sufferings. It is intolerable that fire prevention and health and safety should be treated in that way.
I turn now to cuts that have been made in health and safety provision to protect our young people in schemes, such as the YTS, that the Government have set up. In the five years between 1980 and 1985, 28 young people died—about six a year—on the Government's schemes. One thousand suffered major injuries while working on Manpower Services Commission training programmes. The scandalous aspect was that the Government removed the requirement from employers to notify their local careers offices of when a young person became employed, because it was said that that was too burdensome. The inevitable result was that young people were injured, maimed and killed on some of the Manpower Services Commission's schemes.
The latest figures that I have for YTS — as of 15 September — show that since the YOP schemes which the Labour Government unfortunately brought in as a stop gap — [Laughter.] Conservative Members can laugh, but we are talking about the death of young people, which is a serious matter. They should behave themselves.

Mr. Ian Bruce: rose—

Mr. Fields: Sit down.
Forty young people have died — nine of them in 1986–87. One thousand, four hundred and eighty-seven have had major injuries, and 14,312 have sustained minor injuries. The figures show that it is 30 per cent. more dangerous to work on a YTS scheme than to work in industry—yet the jobs are in much less dangerous areas of industry, including the service industries.
Manpower Services Commission reports show that the problem of trainee supervision and control might lie at the root of some of the serious problems. Under the YTS, the Manpower Services Commission has abrogated its direct responsibility for the health and safety of young trainees in favour of the 5,700 management agencies. But Conservative Members laugh at the problems facing young people, at their deaths and at the horror experienced by their families.
The Manpower Services Commission has only one co-ordinator in each area office. Their responsibilities only partly include health and safety, and they are retired factory inspectors who are employed on part-time consultancy contracts. By effectively privatising control of health and safety in the hands of the managing agents, the Manpower Services Commission has no idea of how, or even whether, agreed changes in training schedules are

being implemented in the thousands of sponsors' workplaces in which trainees receive job training and work experience. The Health and Safety Executive has admitted that it is unable to keep in step with inspections because of a lack of resources to cover the thousands of new work places that have taken on trainees.
The fall of 20 per cent. in the number of HSE inspectors between 1980 and 1986 has occurred because they have moved from comprehensive workplace inspections to "selected basis inspections" based on computerised inspection rating systems. Nowadays, the computers say where an inspector should pay a visit. In 1985–86, only establishments that were "highly rated" in terms of "potential risk", those that employed more than 250 people and that had not been visited since 1980, were inspected. That is the level of care in our society.
In 1985, in his new year message, Dr. John Cullen, the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, said:
If 1985 follows the pattern of previous years then some 500 people starting back to work this January will die as a result of accidents at work before the next New Year celebrations. The pressure of today's economic climate must not prevail over the essential needs of safety.
The philosophy of the Government prevails over the safety of ordinary people. The Prime Minister is on record as saying that it is her intention to rid Britain of Socialism. For "Socialism" substitute health and safety at work, the National Health Service, the welfare of the people, state education and the protection of old-age pensioners, because that is the Socialism that the Tory party wants to get shot of.
I mean no disrespect to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you know that each day the Chaplain comes into the Chamber and prays for five minutes. The worthies on the Government Benches pray with him for divine intervention. After five minutes the Chaplain leaves the Chamber and the Government go about the business of attacking the living standards and the health and safety of our working people. What religion do the Conservatives follow and to what god do they pray? Perhaps during the five minutes in the Chamber the incantation should be, "For those whom we are about to deceive let the Lord make us truly thankful."
The system that the Tories support is built on exploitation and profit. The unpaid labour of workers is the wealth creamed off by the big business interests that the Conservatives represent. One cannot hope that the wealth creators, the wage earners, working people, will be treated any better than plant and machinery or a commodity that is bought and sold. Things are bad now, but in the inevitable slump that will follow the crash in the world's stock markets the problems facing us all will increase the health and safety will be even further disregarded in the pursuit of profit.
By their policies since their election in 1979, the Government have shown a callous disregard for the dignity of working people. Inevitably the number of accidents and deaths will increase. Public relations exercises, such as the Prime Minister dressed in black or the Minister for Health visiting hospitals, are seen by ordinary people for what they are — a return to the scenes of the crimes. Increasingly, working people see them as a cynical self-publicising exercise. Despite the Prime Minister's claim that she will rid Britain of Socialism, workers will realise, from their own experience in the past eight years and from the period ahead that will be difficult


for working people, that the general conditions of life—including health and safety—cannot be maintained, let alone improved, in this system. As members of the Labour party, we must say consistently that only through the Socialist transformation of society will working people be afforded the dignity that they deserve and that we demand.

Mr. John Ward: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) would not expect me to follow his line of argument. I certainly promise that I shall not be nearly as tasteless or, I hope, as controversial as the hon. Gentleman. In common with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, I believe that health and safety should have a bipartisan approach. I shall concentrate on one very important aspect of safety, safety in the home. I realise that my right hon. Friend's Department does not have direct responsibility for this, but he will know that some of us are concerned about the rate of progress in clearing up the anomalies in the regulations that cover inflammable goods in the household and children's toys.
I understand that at present lounge suites are controlled by safety regulations but that beds and mattresses are not. Girl's nightdresses must be fire resistant, but boy's pyjamas need carry only a warning. Dressing gowns must be fire resistant — unless they are made of terry towelling. Such items as oven gloves and ironing board covers are not covered by regulations, although they represent one of the worst fire hazards in the home. Children's toys must be safe in respect of sharp edges and toxic materials, but they can still be a high fire risk.
I know that the Consumer Protection Act 1971 imposes a general duty to trade only in safe goods, but in the area of household goods and toys more detail is required. I am also aware that the Minister with responsibility for Consumer Affairs has issued a draft code of practice about upholstered furniture. I welcome the fact that that code is to be mandatory rather than voluntary.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman talks about the code of practice. I ask him to join his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) and me later this evening and sign an early-day motion that is critical of the fact that, during its implementation, the code of practice will allow for a three-year period for the sale of highly inflammable and toxic substances. If certain articles catch fire, then after two and a half minutes one is unlikely to get out of the property; in three minutes one will not get out, and in four minutes one will be dead. That is the reality of the changes that the Minister is attempting to introduce. They are changes, but not basic changes in the safety requirements relating to these inflammable and toxic substances. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in the subject, he should sign the early-day motion and force the Minister to impose an absolute ban on these disastrous materials that are killing 300 people a year.

Mr. Ward: I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I congratulate him on making his third speech today in the Chamber.
The Institute of Trading Standards Administrators has commented on the proposed code and I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the experts in this area. Among its comments, the ITSA has suggested a tightening of the code where it covers combinations of fillings. It

surely makes sense for the Government to take this opportunity to outlaw some of the more dangerous combinations of materials that are used in household goods.
I should also like the Minister to look again at his proposals for labelling. If they are to be of value, labels must be clear and unambiguous to the consumer, who will not generally be an expert on this subject. I suggest that some of the labelling requirements do not meet the criteria of being clear and simple. If they were clear and simple, it would help not only the consumer but the producer and the trading standards officers who would have the job of enforcement.
I spoke earlier about the anomalies in the fire-resistant requirements for children's clothing and toys. I fully appreciate that we can never attain 100 per cent. compliance with fire regulations in this area. The unknowing relative who makes clothes or toys from unsuitable materials is one obvious example of our difficulty.
However, we can and we should protect the public from the supplier who produces or imports goods that are a potential hazard. I have no hesitation in saying that, if this results in some small increase in the price of the articles, it is a small price to pay for peace of mind and protection from the misery of a household fire involving children. Will the Minister consider the problems with regard to the second-hand goods market? It is much more difficult to impose reasonable safety standards, but it is an important sector and it needs further study.
I am indebted to Mr. Peter Cobb, the county trading standards officer for Dorset, for the work that he and his colleagues have done and are doing in this regard. They are our watchdogs and they do a very good job. The video that he showed me of furniture, toys and clothing burning under controlled conditions convinced me that we have a long way to go in protecting the public from the introduction of unnecessary and potentially lethal hazards in their homes.
Last year in Dorset 12 people were killed by fire, and that pattern was repeated throughout the country. Some 700 people were killed and 8,000 were seriously injured in domestic fires in the United Kingdom. That happens almost every year. As recent events have sadly demonstrated, a normal, everyday situation can quickly develop into a fire-induced disaster.
I ask the Minister to err on the side of safety when making decisions on the fire regulations affecting household goods, clothing and toys. Our constituents would expect nothing else of us, and it would be typical of the Government's steady progress in this important sector of safety for the consumer.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The debate opened with the tragic events at King's Cross — events that should never have been allowed to happen; on that the House is agreed. The inquiry into the disaster has opened today with a call for it to be conducted in a constructive spirit I applaud that, and I am sure that the House will join me in so doing.
The Secretary of State is right to say that we must work together to increase health and safety at home, at work. in the environment and in public places. Nothing will be gained from prejudicing the coroner at the inquiry or laying blame before we are certain of the facts. It must be


said that the limited facts that have already become public knowledge—stations littered with rubbish and other fire hazards—are causing grave concern, not least since the first escalator fire was in 1985, and since then there have been three more.
Just as there is an obligation to conduct the inquiry constructively, so there is an obligation on London Regional Transport and the Government to respond to the eventual report frankly and fully and to implement all its recommendations, whatever they may be. I hope that the Minister will make that commitment, not only with regard to London Regional Transport but with regard to the report's implications for other matters. It is an obligation to the memory of the 31 people who so tragically died, to their families and friends and to millions of others who use the Underground system.
The motion raises an issue that does not only affect those who travel on the Underground; it impinges also on the safety of millions across the country — young and old, and those working in the countryside as well as those working in cities and factories.
Representing a rural constituency that is largely dependent on small businesses, agricultural work and so on, I am especially aware of the dangers that can lie in apparently idyllic countryside. For example, someone working in a manufacturing firm that employs fewer than 100 people runs a higher risk — perhaps 50 per cent. higher — of suffering a serious accident than someone working in a larger firm. Most people in Cornwall work in such environments, as do most people outside the major cities. There were 12,068 major injuries to employees in all industries, excluding agriculture, forestry and fishing and mining and quarrying, which is an increase of 17·9 per cent. on 1984. Fatalities increased by 13·4 per cent. The statistics show that the greatest risks lie precisely in those small firms. They are difficult to police and, sadly, are under-inspected by the inspectorate's overstretched work force.
The Government place great emphasis on cost-cutting and efficiency. The factories inspctorate has consistently argued that companies cut costs in the vital sector of training line managers to oversee shop floor health and safety. They increase the ignorance that the Secretary of State referred to as the most serious cause of accidents at work. As numbers increase, we find that ignorance is the greatest problem.
As the threat of unemployment has increased, as more people are in fear of losing their jobs, so employees have become reluctant to complain about the conditions in which they work, and point out the dangers that they face. That has increased as employees have become more afraid of the risk of losing their employment.
The reality of the matter is that the cut in the inspectorate of 20 per cent. in recent years has increasingly resulted in it being unable to fulfil its role. On average, it has been unable to visit workplaces more than once every 12 years. Small firms are practically ignored in those inspections.
Mr. Eves, who is Chief Inspector of Factories, said that he would like an extra 60 or 80 inspectors to ensure that the present work load was adequately done. Others have suggested that as many as 600 more would be more appropriate. I can offer no more than a muted welcome

to the Minister's statement that the inspectorate will increase by 40 within the limits of its training facilities, especially as there has been a cut of 140 since 1979.
I hope that the Minister will make a commitment, at the very least, to increasing the facilities to train people. If there is a natural block, let us overcome it and ensure that it is not holding back the inspectorate. Mr. Eves said that a substantial number of smaller firms have little regard for their work force as human beings. I welcome the Secretary of State's intention to concentrate the inspectorate more on smaller firms, but that will need many more inspectors, which is why I would seek to increase training opportunities.
The responsibility for safety does not lie primarily with the employer but with the Government. However, the cost should not lie with the Government. The employer should be obliged to take these measures. A good employer will take these measures anyway, but the bad employer is the responsibility of the Government. The Government must lay down the rules within which those bad employers work. The Government must ensure that they are properly enforced.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman says that the Government should police these safety measures. There are over 20 million people in employment in Britain. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that those people do not look after their own safety and comply with the regulations that are laid down by Government?

Mr. Taylor: Regrettably, there are not 20 million employers, but the Government must lay down the rules within which those companies work; in so doing it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the rules are followed, and to do that we need an inspectorate that is adequate for the task.
I draw particular attention to the special needs of young people, of whom we heard a little earlier. That group is more at risk than any other in the work force, because they lack experience and training. They are often the ones who are likely to be in an industrial accident. In 1986, a TUC report announced 26 deaths on youth schemes — the youth opportunity programme and the youth training scheme. Since that report, there have been an additional seven deaths. Further, there have been maimings, which are so unnecessary and tragic; they remain a national disgrace.
A major injury is defined as a major fracture of a bone, amputation, loss of sight or 24-hour hospitalisation. In 1985–86 that figure reached an all-time high of 220 young people on YTS. Since then, the number has increased and now totals 355 since July 1986. Nationally, the level of injuries in industry stands at 60 per 100,000 members of the work force. On YTS, the figure works out at 82 per 100,000. The figure on YTS is one third higher than the figure for injuries in other industries.

Mr. James Paice: Do you not understand that you cannot compare figures prior to 1 April 1986 with figures after that date, because the regulations changed on 1 April? Therefore, injuries that were previously classified as minor were classified as major after then. To compare major accidents prior to that date, as you did—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I must draw the attention of hon. Members to the


fact that they must speak in a formal manner through the Chair. This is a very informal Chamber, but our informality is a little excessive this evening.

Mr. Taylor: I repeat, since July 1986, 355 young people have suffered a major bone fracture, amputation, loss of sight or 24-hour hospitalisation. There is no excuse for that, and there should be no difference between the parties on that point. We should all be worried about that and resources should be devoted to tackling the problem.
The parents of one YTS trainee who died tragically received only £52 in compensation, and six other parents received just £78, according to a Youth Aid response to the MSC report last year. That is criminal. I do not believe that any hon. Member believes that that level of compensation should be accepted. Therefore, the fact that the MSC is taking the issue more seriously is to be welcomed. The recognition of trainees under health and safety legislation should be welcomed. However, there must be financial back-up for the inspectorate to ensure that action is taken in every case.
It is difficult in that context for the health and safety inspectorate to be really effective. In 1985–86, 198 work experience placements were reported closed on safety grounds, and 200 were not allowed to take part in the scheme. At that time, the 398 excluded workplaces represented just 0·25 per cent. of the total. Since then, 171 have been closed and 44 have been refused. The moves that the MSC has been making recently are to be welcomed particularly its new staff training initiatives, packages for YTS supervisors and the health and safety information packs. Sadly, the initiatives were too late for the 35 young people who died under the scheme. That is why strenuous efforts must be made to prevent more deaths and tragic injuries.
I do not yet have the confidence to say that more such injuries will not happen. I do not even have the confidence to claim that the level of danger to the YTS trainees will be reduced to the equivalent level of danger for others in industry. It is now widely accepted that accidents occur as a result of lack of training and lack of supervision. It is vital with any youth training scheme — because those trainees are more vulnerable to accidents—that qualified staff inspect every workplace to be used by trainees and keep inspecting them to ensure that standards are maintained.
The Secretary of State also referred to nuclear power stations. In a recent article in The House Magazine, the Secretary of State for Energy said:
I know that some people ask whether nuclear power stations will be safe in the private sector. But one lesson we have all surely learnt from Chernobyl is that safety is not determined by who owns a power station.
Frankly, that hardly inspires confidence in the privatisation of the nuclear industry. No matter who owns the industry, the force of law and inspection should ensure that there are no dangers which can be avoided. In that case, the resources are not present to keep pace with the need.
We are all worried that in a privatised industry, if a report is made that a reactor may be less safe than was thought, the industrialist running the industry will want to continue to run that reactor to save the pennies and profits, when that reactor should really be closed down and inspected. That is not just a Liberal party concern. In a recent BBC poll, 70 per cent. of people said that they were concerned about the privatisation and public safety

of the nuclear industry. No privatisation should take place without the proper safeguards. However, that should not simply apply to privatisation. No industry should operate without such safeguards. No industry should be free to endanger the employees or people living nearby.
Nuclear installations inspectorate trainees must train for three years before they are professionally qualified to have a nuclear power station under their control. That means that, if electricity privatisation is introduced during the lifetime of this Government, the build-up of qualified staff must start now. We have one third of the number of inspectors in West Germany. In February 1987, the Select Committee on Energy reported that at least seven of the present inspectors are being retained beyond the normal retirement age and that three more senior staff are due to retire this year. If we put that into the context of the fact that there are only 102 people employed, it becomes a truly frightening statistic. There were six new appointments in 1984, five in 1985 and six in 1986. The Select Committee on Energy described that situation as a "folly" which must be urgently rectified.
A summary produced by the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations published in June 1987 regretted the increase of inspectors by only 20 to 120. John Horlock, the committee chairman, said that at least 50 more were needed. He said:
50 per cent. is the kind of increase the Government should be thinking about.

Mr. Michael Jack: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that, in addition to the inspectorate that he described, the nuclear industry is subject to the Health and Safety Executive inspectorate and the National Radiological Protection Board inspectorate?

Mr. Taylor: If the fears of the general public are not enough for the hon. Gentleman, surely he must consider the fears of the Select Committee on Energy and the fears of the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations.
I have been speaking for some time now, and I want to make a final point about agricultural safety. This is an aspect of particular concern in my constituency. The agricultural inspectorate currently has a staff of 154. In response to a recent parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), the Minister admitted:
On 1 April 1979 there were 189 inspectors in Her Majesty's Agricultural Inspectorate. On 1 October 1987 the total was 154, of whom 142 were in the field.
The Minister's excuse for that was:
In order to contain public sector manpower and spending, there have been staff reductions in the Health and Safety Executive, as in the Civil Service as a whole. In HSE this has been accompanied by improvements in efficiency with the use of sound financial management, strategic planning and careful targeting." — [Official Report, 6 November 1987; Vol. 121, c. 937.]
In agriculture above all, the dangers to the individual who usually works alone, often many fields from the nearest road, are especially high. The machinery is not governed with the stringency applied to machinery in factories. It is horrifying to consider that, as yet, there is no legislation to enforce safety mechanisms to be automatically included with agricultural machinery. Were that legislation to be introduced, there would have to be an adequate inspectorate to implement it and to increase education and training.
People working with agricultural machinery need more than an inspector calling round every few months. There must be immediate safety mechanisms. Truro school in my constituency has developed such a device, which could cut by half the number of people killed or maimed in farm accidents. It has developed a unique system that will switch off tractors and machinery called "Deadstop". It has received an award from BP and fired the interests of machinery manufacturers. However, it has received precious little response from the Government. It consists of touch-sensitive fibreglass pads fitted to easily reached points around the outside of a tractor or piece of agricultural machinery. Each pad is linked to the fuel pump and one touch will switch off the engine and set off a warning for help.
If anyone had seen, as I have seen, a plastic dummy caught up in a baling machine, they would understand the full horror of what could happen to a farm labourer or farmer who cannot reach out to stop the machine because his clothing is caught, who is working alone and has no hope of rescue. The system that I have described works and, at the very least, the Government should look urgently at legislation to enforce similar equipment that could save lives, if not that very equipment. Such devices should have been introduced 50 years ago.
It is appalling that there is still loss of life, when adequate research or support for initiatives such as I have described and the legislation necessary to ensure that they are used could be introduced. Such mechanisms have long been compulsory in industry, but not in agriculture.
The motion refers to funding for safety. The Government do not need to supply the funding to put that machinery in place, because that is the responsibility of the manufacturer and the employer. The Government and the Secretary of State are right about that. However, rules need to exist in agriculture, as in any other industry and so does the inspectorate to enforce them. That is what the Liberal party is calling for, and what I hope the House will call for.

Mr. James Paice: There has been much comment from Opposition Members this evening, which seems to fall into the trap that has so often bedevilled their efforts to improve working conditions— the belief that legislation and regulations will cure everything. There has been the failure to recognise that it is far more important to change people's attitudes. One cannot change attitudes by legislation or regulations.
As important as the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is—I pay tribute, as did my right hon. Friend, to the fact that it was essentially a bipartisan piece of legislation — it cannot, on its own, create safety in the workplace because it must be accompanied by a change in attitude on the part of employer and employee. Employees must be much more aware of their responsibilities and obligations to their fellow workers. Of course, at the same time, employers must know and understand their legal and moral obligations. They must recognise the cost of not complying with safety regulations.
I do not mean the cost of a fine imposed by a court. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) reeled off all sorts of statistics on that subject. I mean the cost in down time, in lost work, of sick pay and of loss of

reputation as an employer. That is important for employers who are hauled before the courts because of safety breaches. All those things have a cost when an accident occurs and, on the whole, employers increasingly understand that.
We have gone a long way and there are now all manner of regulations. I believe that the hon. Member for Oldham. West mentioned that there have been 28 since the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act came into force. In reply to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), I should say that a large number have been related to agriculture. There have been regulations about guards on machinery, protective clothing and ventilators, among other things. They all help, but one cannot legislate to stop the reckless or the ignorant from hurting themselves or others. That is why we must concentrate much more on individual attitudes and approaches to safety.
I should like to concentrate on the most important aspect, which is at the beginning of it all. I was pleased that the subject of the youth training scheme was raised by the hon. Member for Truro and by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), who, I am sorry to note, has left the Chamber, having poured vitriol on virtually everything. I believe strongly, and hope, that YTS will become the normal route of entry into work for people leaving school at 16. It is right that that should be so. However, if that is to happen, we must look properly at the role of safety awareness in YTS.
Hon. Members have bandied about all sorts of accusations that are based on hearsay rather than on actual experience of what is happening in YTS. The two hon. Members who quoted figures had to band together the youth opportunities programme with the youth training scheme to get a figure of any sensational proportions. However, YOPS was totally dissimilar to YTS. The only similarity was that it applied to the same age group. There was no other similarity between the youth training scheme, which has a proper programme of training, and the YOP scheme, which was very much an in-fill way of keeping people off the dole. That is why the Government replaced it as soon as possible.
When a managing agent wishes to run a youth training scheme, he must submit a proposal to the Manpower Services Commission, in which he must make a statement of his proposals, saying what he will do for induction training. The induction programme must lay down the major aspects of training in safety and in first aid, which should always run alongside any safety training. Every work provider's premises must be inspected to ensure not only that there is safety equipment but safe practices that comply with all the legislation and regulations applying to such a place of work. I know of many would-be work providers who have been turned down at that stage because they did not comply or did not wish to comply.
All training providers, be it the managing agent or some other outside training contractor, such as a college of further education, or any private provider, must ensure not only that the premises have been inspected for safety, but that the training programme places sufficient emphasis on safety throughout the training period. Although many people, for all sorts of reasons, wish the youth training scheme to falter and fall, the reality is that it is not doing so. All the safety regulations are checked regularly by the Manpower Services Commission.
The House will be aware that, during the past 18 months, every managing agent has had to be monitored to


gain approved training organisation status. Such monitoring takes place over a three-month period. It is not a "here today, gone tomorrow" visit. The three-month monitoring programme seeks to ensure that managing agents comply with and fulfil the proposals that they set out when they were granted the scheme. Between January and March this year, as a member of an area manpower board, I saw dozens of reports from the MSC about a range of managing agents. Those reports placed great emphasis on safety throughout the scheme. The members of the board did the same when they discussed the reports.
That process is important and several managing agents were given only provisional status because there were safety problems. They must now upgrade to full training organisation status by next April if they are to continue running youth training schemes. Some have probably done so already. I know one managing agent whom the board rejected for several reasons. Sadly, when he appealed to the main MSC board, the appeal was upheld. I know a great deal about that case and I am sorry about the decision, because I think it was a serious mistake.
The matter does not stop there. For the past six months, managing agents have been inspected and monitored by the MSC's training standards advisory service. That is another step forward. It ensures that the quality of training provided by managing agents fulfils the targets and aims of the YTS. Again, close checks are made to ensure that safety is given its rightful emphasis.
This evening we have heard about alleged cuts in resources. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State refuted that completely and gave the up-to-date figures for expenditure. He did not include the figure which the MSC is spending on health and safety. In addition to the Health and Safety Executive's money, the MSC is spending some £4 million on health and safety in YTS alone. That is important.
The best way to begin to ensure that we move towards a well-trained, safety-conscious work force is to inculcate the safety ethos into fledgling workers. I do not want others to learn about safety as I did. I had worked for three weeks and was only 17 when I was close to a fatal accident. Another lad of my age who had just started work was fatally injured and I had to stand with him while he was dying and someone went for help. That was a farm accident, similar to those described by the hon. Member for Truro. It was a tragedy, but no legislation, no regulations and no equipment would have prevented it. It was caused by a lack of understanding about the way to proceed on a piece of work.
I will take no lectures from anybody about the need for safety at work, to be aware of problems and to ensure that young people at work understand the need for safety in every aspect of their work. I want everbody to understand their role and nobody to expect others to monitor safety for them, whether employee or employer. Everyone must ensure that everyone is working in a safe environment safely. The way ahead is to persuade others that they must use foresight in everything because often we use only hindsight.
At the end of the day it is not machinery, a lack of guards or anything like that which causes accidents; it is people. People can also prevent accidents, but only if they are aware of the responsibility that everyone carries for safety. Today's YTS is a major step towards ensuring that the work force of tomorrow understands its responsibilities and is safe in future.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: In opening, the Secretary of State claimed that the Health and Safety Commission's funding was higher than that under the Labour Government, and he played around with some figures in an attempt to prove it. It is a pity that he is not present to answer this point, but I hope that a colleague will pass it on to him. If that were the case, how does he explain the drastic falling away of the inspectorate during the years of the Conservative Government? It has not reinstated employees who have died in service or retired, but has allowed the numbers to decrease. It has also failed to maintain the level of publications on health and safety advice and information which was carried out under the Labour Government. If it is spending less money on publications and employees, I wonder where the money is going.
The Secretary of State referred to the responsibility of individual employers and employees alike. Indeed, many Conservative Members have done so, as if the responsibility were equal. I can only imagine that they have not troubled to read the words of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. Section 2 states:
It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as it is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all of his employees.
Section 7 requires every employee to co-operate with the efforts of his employer to ensure his safety and that of other employees. That duty is not equally apportioned; it is not even-handed. The Health and Safety Commission has repeatedly told employers that they are primarily responsible for health and safety in the work place.
The Secretary of State also referred to the noise regulations that are still to come. However, he slid over the subject, and we should be keen to hear more about it. The code of practice on noise that has existed since 1969 has not yet been updated, although people in the medical profession have known for over 100 years that noise at work can make people permanently deaf or give them tinnitus. Only after immense pressure from the trade union movement—and, I suppose, shame that the country had fallen so far behind other advanced industrial nations in the noise regulations—are we at last catching up.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Would the hon. Lady care to reread section 7(a) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 which provides that an employee has a duty
to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work"?

Mrs. Fyfe: I agree with that. However, the primary responsibility, as the hon. Gentleman will have read elsewhere in that section, is to co-operate with his employer's efforts to ensure a safe workplace.
The Secretary of State referred to deaths from occupational illness, and had the effrontery to tell the House that it was impossible to give a figure for such deaths, because many go unreported. No employer should dare to fail to report the death or illness of any of his employees. I am talking about instances in which the person is in service; however, sadly, many such deaths arise because the person has contracted a fatal illness through his work, and has subsequently been made to leave that work—because, in this day and age, it is fair to sack someone when he is too unwell to work. Such people may die years or perhaps months later, by which


time the firm has lost touch with its former employee. What a comment that is on the state of industrial relations in Britain today.
I noticed that the Secretary of State did not say a word about the role of safety representatives and safety committees. Was that a deliberate omission, or has the Secretary of State managed conveniently to forget people of whose existence he would rather not be aware?

Mr. Heffer: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, because she is making an excellent speech. But is she aware that, in the construction industry, the growth of self-employment and lump labour means that the industry is no longer concerned with the safety regulations, as it ought to be, but only with making money? That has developed under the present Government. If workers who are not self-employed kick up too much of a row, they find themselves out on the streets, unemployed, because they have raised the question of safety.

Mrs. Fyfe: I thank my hon. Friend for that point, with which I thoroughly agree. It is clear that the existence of lump labour creates far more hazardous working conditions, because safety officers will not be on site, as they would with a responsible firm. Certainly there will be no trade union safety representatives elected by the workers. That is why the lump area of the construction industry has such a bad safety record. If the Government were serious about safety in that industry, they would ensure that the lump system ended once and for all.
There has been much talk about the major hazardous industries, such as agriculture, mining, construction and the nuclear industry. Because of recent events, fire too has come to our attention. There is widespread disregard throughout industry and commerce of the hazards from fumes, dust, noise, overcrowding and bad housekeeping. No one needs training on how to keep clean, but firms cut costs by not keeping places clean.
The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was telling us on the radio this morning that health and safety should not be an issue between the two major parties and that the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 was common ground between them. In that case, will the Minister give us some assurances? Will he take steps to ensure that employers carry out their statutory duty to draw up a safety policy for the workplace, or will he leave that unenforced, as it is at present?
In my former occupation, I knew many safety representatives. Very few came from places where the employer was carrying out his statutory duty to have an up-to-date safety policy which was relevant to his workplace. Is the Minister aware that the Health and Safety Commission itself believes that the organisation of health and safety in the workplace must have equal importance with the organisation of production? If the Minister agrees, will he enforce that? If he does not agree, will he be honest enough to say so and stop trying to preach health and safety to people who care more about it than he ever will?
Will the Minister take action against employers who prevent elected trade union safety representatives from exercising their statutory right to attend recognised health and safety courses? That is another widespread abuse of the legislation under the Conservative Government. Employers know that they can get away with this, because

the law will not be enforced. Employees are afraid to seek their statutory right of time off for health and safety training, because they know that their jobs will be on the line if they dare confront their employers.
Will the Minister insist that health and safety training and supervision in the workplace become a reality and that there is not the half-hearted approach typical in so many industries? Will he insist that the Health and Safety Executive guidance notes on dangerous substances are updated annually? Under the Labour Government there was an annual updating of safety levels for hundreds of hazardous and poisonous substances. In recent years, publication of updated levels has been irregular.
Will the Minister also ensure that leaflets which give information on dangerous substances, dangerous machinery and the handling of tools and equipment are more widely available? At present, they are very hard to come by. People must go to HMSO bookshops to get them. If we cared about health and safety, the leaflets would be in the ordinary bookshop in the high street. Often, they are out of print, and the only thing available is a highly technical publication. Although that may be necessary for some people, it is not meaningful for the ordinary man and woman who has to deal with those hazards.
It is essential that the lump labour practice is ended. I am pleased about the regulations which are coming into force on the wearing of safety helmets — that long-standing need is at last being met—but the regulations do not go far enough. When we walk around the streets, we see scaffolding which is a disgrace; it is obviously dangerous, yet people get away with not taking proper precautions.
The Government have been in power since 1979 and have had ample time to put right all the problems in health and safety, but they have not done so. Therefore, I do not believe that there is an equal approach by both sides of the House to the question. Only a Labour Government will impose proper health and safety standards, and I look forward to that day.

Mr. Ian Bruce: When there is an Opposition day, it is sad that it looks like an Opposition day off. Time and again the Opposition select interesting subjects for debate, but when the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who made a good contribution, was speaking, only between four and nine of his hon. Friends were listening to him. I am glad that 10 Opposition Members are now in the Chamber. The number went to double figures for the first time about two minutes ago.

Mr. Alan Meale: Does the hon. Member agree that more Opposition than Government Members are in the Chamber?

Mr. Bruce: Certainly I would. Unfortunately, they have had to listen to some of the speeches of Opposition Members.
Hundreds of people are killed and thousands of people are injured every year, and the subject should be debated by hon. Members. However, the Labour party has brought forward this motion because, all of a sudden, Labour Members have found a statistic with which they thought they could beat the Government. They have seen the number of injuries rise at an alarming level. This has


been caused because the Government are concerned to ensure that all serious injuries are pulled into the net. Last year the Government, rightly, increased the categories which would be covered to include fractures of the wrists and ankles and amputations of digits—serious injuries which should be considered seriously.
We have heard this evening that the Government have increased the budget by £6·7 million and have approved the employment of another 55 inspectors and 35 new support staff. More inspectors should be working in the factories and in the field, doing the necessary work. At the moment we have roughly five staff per constituency, which is probably an adequate number, but only one and a half of those are doing inspections. I hope that that number can be increased and that more advice can be given to people.
I am pleased to hear that the number of inspectors in the nuclear industry has been increased. Winfrith is in my constituency. It is an atomic research establishment as well as a generating station. I have had many conversations with engineers and staff of that establishment and they tell me that at the moment they feel—I appreciate that great strides have been taken to increase the number of staff — that not enough inspectors are fully trained to do their many tasks, so I welcome the news that the number of inspectors will be increased to 120.
We have talked a great deal about changing attitudes, which is very important. I remember, as a work study engineer, many times having been brought in to look at safety at work. I should like to give an example of a new managing director arriving at the company I had recently joined. We were looking at the routing of profiles on the outside of printed circuit boards, which caused a great deal of noise, dust and danger to the operators. After much consultation, many thousands of pounds were spent to bring the safety devices up to scratch, to get rid of the dust and to give people protection and ear defenders.
Only about a week after all the work had been done by the company, putting the changes into place, the staff went to management and said, "We know that it is all noisy, dirty and everything else, but why don't you just give us another fiver a week and we will go back to the old system we had before?" We have had to hammer it into people that safety is the responsibility of employees as well as of employers.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman referred to circuit boards. I wonder whether he would agree with me that the problems sometimes lie with the employers. Recently an inspector found the case of a 16-year-old boy drilling circuit boards who was provided with a tube from his mouth to the open window so that he would not be overcome by the fumes in the factory.

Mr. Bruce: It is interesting to hear from the hon. Gentleman. The matter to which he referred sounds like an item in an article that I also read. The person was drilling holes in metal, and the fumes were from a diesel generator. I do not know whether we have the same story in mind, but it seems to be rather strange. However, I agree that any such practices are wrong.
I was about to say that management must never abdicate the responsibility constantly to check on what employees are doing. Employees become blasé. They may deal with dangerous substances. Senior management in any industry must agree that they have a primary responsibility.

Mr. Heffer: The latest report of the Health and Safety Commission points out that a young roofing operator was killed when he fell through fragile asbestos sheeting while replacing some skylights. No crawling boards were provided. Who is responsible for providing crawling boards? It is not the operative but the employer. No doubt, if the lad had asked for crawling boards, he would have been told to do the job or be sacked. That is the truth.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He mentioned an example and then promptly decided that the employee in question had asked for crawling boards—the report: does not state that — and that they were not available to him.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman should read it.

Mr. Bruce: Clearly the employer should supply the necessary crawling boards. Of course that is correct. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. But it is also clearly the employee's responsibility, before embarking on a hazardous job, to look after his own safety. The hon. Gentleman knows that, in a normal workplace, many willing employees rush off and do jobs without the necessary safety devices being in place.
The building industry has been mentioned. Clearly many things need to be done. The health and safety inspectorate has spent considerable time on blitzing building sites. There is a great deal of ignorance through a lack of training of building employees. There is often a great deal of bravado. A building labourer will boast about how much he can carry and how he can run up and down scaffolding without the necessary safety procedures being observed. We must change employees' and employers' attitudes. The same applies to faclory labourers.
I was pleased to see in the Strangers' Gallery one of my constituents who works for BP. BP is a multinational company that spends an enormous amount of time and trouble training its staff. It has an excellent safety record in a hazardous industry.
We must pay more attention to machinery design and look for intrinsically safe devices and processes. It Is often far too late for employers to put add-on guards on machinery that is already in place. Add-on guards often cause accidents rather than prevent them. The ingenuity of designers is always outclassed by the ingenuity of an operator who wants to get through a system. The triple valve interlock tends to be defeated by the triple valve override that a clever operator has created. Management must ensure that sensible devices are put in place and that the interests of their employees are constantly at the forefront.
Workplaces need safety groups, and safety groups must work with management. People often talk about committees. They sit in offices and, for hours on end, discuss what safety is all about. They would be much better advised to have a safety group to walk around the factory looking at a different part each week. Such a group could include people from outside — perhaps even someone's mum — who could walk round and look at the factory through new eyes and say, "Why are you doing that? Isn't it dangerous?". That would be enough to make people think.
We can rely upon employees to ensure that the Health and Safety Executive is advised of dangerous practices in factories. It is wrong to say that the fear of being dismissed


prevents employees from reporting such practices. The Health and Safety Executive takes anonymous tip-offs and any employee who feels that he is not being properly looked after should make a proper report to the Health and Safety Executive. All of us should ensure that we highlight accidents that have occurred. I have recently gone round all my friends showing them two fingers, like this — I am not being rude to Opposition Members— because I ripped my fingers open on a staple when opening an envelope. Too often, people say, "It will not happen to me." We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) how he had to stand and watch someone die after an industrial accident. The fact that such accidents occur needs to be highlighted all the time.
Of course the Government have a necessary role in making sensible regulations and we have to ensure that they are enforced. However, education and the responsibility of the individual are very important. Industry must rededicate itself to real improvements and prove that it is capable of putting its own house in order, but for employees their lives are really in their hands.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Throughout the debate there have been many more Labour Members than Conservative Members present. For the most part, the Conservative Benches have been deserted, whereas the repeated interventions made by my hon. Friends have demonstrated their interest in the matter and the time and attention that they have devoted to it.
It is interesting how, when Conservative Members are in trouble, they always want to snuggle up to consensus and say, "There is not a division between us." Let us have a look at the divisions. Year in, year out, more days have been lost in industrial injury than in strike action — except in very special years. In 1980, which was a bad year for industrial stoppages, in spite of the Conservatives' new broom, 11 million days were lost through industrial stoppages and 13·1 million in industrial injury. In 1981, 4 million days were lost in strike action and 10·9 million in industrial injury. In 1982, 5 million days were lost through strike action and 10·8 million—double the number—in industrial injury. In 1983, 3·7 million days were lost in strike action and 9·5 million—three times the figure—in industrial injury.
The Government have introduced Act after Act to legislate against the trade unions, although industrial injury is a serious problem and more days are lost through it. In spite of that, many cuts have been made in health and safety. Incidentally, the Government no longer require notification of the loss of three or more days through industrial injury. The fact that they no longer require such notification, which gave them a great deal of information about industrial injury, shows their lack of care.
The Government have spoken about increased resources for the factories inspectorate. The safety of factories is monitored by that inspectorate. In 1979, in the general and specialist categories, there were 951 inspectors. In 1987 there were 823 inspectors. On my arithmetic, that is reduction of 128. Therefore, 128 fewer people are going round monitoring the safety standards in the factories.
Given the fact that the total number of inspectors is less than 1,000, that is a significant reduction and affects the standard of protection to which workers are entitled.
When special accidents occur, such as accidents at fun fairs, they receive a great deal of publicity. Ministers trot off to the television cameras and say that they are carefully looking after the situation. When people are killed at swimming pools, with their new swirls and multi-tubular constructions, resources are immediately diverted from the Health and Safety Executive — it can ill afford to lose those resources — to produce an inquiry and report. However, resources are not available to carry out the fundamental requirements of such a report because of the pressures exerted on such resources.
For the past two years, a consultative document regarding draft guidelines for the standard of supervision in swimming pools has been in the process of production and distribution. How long will that document take? When will the process be completed? Will we have yet another crop of accidents this summer, with Ministers going off, once again, to the media to say how much they care?
When will we have some action regarding accidents caused through lifting heavy weights? Those accidents cause thousands of people severe or minor injury each year — either way it is extremely uncomfortable for those people. The legislation is antique and the Secretary of State has said that he is concerned about that. When will they alter the Agricultural (Lifting of Heavy Weights) Regulations that place a limit of 175 lbs on a weight to be lifted? When will the textile regulations be altered that place a limit of 120 lbs on a weight to be lifted by an adult worker? When will the regulations be altered with regard to factory workers who are allowed to lift a "reasonably heavy load"? When will such legislation be clarified, considering the fact that such lifting causes so much injury and loss of time at work?
The Secretary of State spoke complacently about asbestos. However, after I had intervened, he said that there were some problems, but no new ones. The reason why this Tory Government took action on asbestos was not because of the pressure from workers or union representations, such as that of Transport and General Workers Union and the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union—that union has done excellent work on this matter. It was the result of a television programme entitled, "Alice, a Fight for Life." That programme showed how a woman had contracted mesotheliosis. Indeed, she virtually died on the programme.
The Government had been in possession of the Simpson committee recommendations for three years, but had done nothing. Belatedly, they introduced a licensing system for asbestos strippers. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether he will make representations to the Secretary of State for the Environment to provide grants for the authorities to cover the cost for removing the asbestos that is being found? The removal of this dangerous substance is placing a great burden on local authorities.
Can the Secretary of State also tell us when the present haphazard system by which anyone can pay £50 for a licence to kill will be replaced? A system should be introduced whereby only qualified and trained operators are allowed to obtain a licence.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the unions and employers have signed an agreement to improve conditions and have sent a joint recommendation to the Health and Safety Commission on how licensing regulations may be turned into an effective control system? Under the present system virtually anyone can get a licence to carry out this highly dangerous job. Both the unions and the employers want more inspectors and a totting-up system for offences that would lead to the revocation of a licence.
They want new rights for safety representatives and evidence of competence — trained operators and supervisors — before a licence is granted. That is very typical of the attitude of the trade unions and of some employers in these dangerous occupations. They have made representations. When he replies to the debate, the Secretary of State can tell us whether these representations will have any effect in improving the safety standards for those who work in that very dangerous industry.
There is another hon. Member who wants a few extra minutes. I hope that you notice, Mr. Speaker, that I am going to give him one or two minutes by concluding now. This is because I think we should maintain a balance in the House. There have been many and varied contributions from Opposition Members. It is our debate, and there have been many interjections which demonstrate the wide range of interest that exists in the labour movement.
Contrary to the hypocritical and complacent attitude of hon. Members on the Government Benches, it is the workers who suffer the slings and arrows of industrial injury. It is they who have to have the days off work and it is they who are injured. Many workers can testify that if they raise question of safety, if they raise the question of improved conduct by the employer, they are threatened with the sack and are often given it.

Mr. Terry Fields: Is my hon. Friend not aware that British Rail workers, or London Regional Transport workers at King's Cross station, were threatened with dismissal for giving out leaflets to the general public on the lack of safety measures at that station?

Mr. Cryer: That is right. That attitude is enshrined in the phrase, "Let management manage." That is the sort of attitude that the Tory Government want to support on every conceivable occasion. Workers are not supposed to have rights or to excercise those rights because it challenges the executive suite which gives so much money and support to the Conservative party.
I conclude, therefore, by stressing the great importance of this subject. We must say again and again that we lose more days each year through industrial injury than through strike action. We need better and tighter legislation from the Government to prevent loss of life and industrial injury, not the nasty, vicious vendetta that they are carrying out against the trade union movement today.

Mr. Michael Jack: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for giving me one or two moments in which to make a contribution to this debate. His attitude is much appreciated.
Bearing in mind the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) and comments from other hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, I hope that we are not trying to argue that "Socialism is safety".

I would, with respect, remind Opposition Members that one of the largest and most horrible industrial accidents occurred in Chernobyl, and I do not see too many Conservatives there.
I am interested in how accidents actually happen in the workplace, because in my last place of business I was responsible for trying to develop an attitude in my company on the subject of safety. I would like to pay a tribute to the role of the trade unions in that work. As someone who was not at the outset fully trained in that sphere, I was given much good advice, particularly from the stewards and regional officials of the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union. The trade unions have an important contribution to make to discussions on safety practices.
This contribution highlights the essential element which has come out of the debate, that safety is a contract. It is not just a matter of the words of the safety statement on the notice board; it is what happens on the factory floor every day of the week. It is the responsibility of the employee, together with the employer, to ensure good safe practices and working conditions.
I found no difficulty in getting a member of the Health and Safety Commission to come and give me some advice on good practice. The service is available, and someone came quickly to carry out an inspection. But no amount of inspection, had that person come every day after the initial visit, would have ensured safe working conditions in the packing and produce industry that I worked in. It was down to the management's attitude and the way in which the management followed up those recommendations—and likewise the response that we got from the work force. Safety is about the essential operation of that partnership.
Many Labour Members have highlighted safety problems in small companies, and our larger companies could also contribute towards their safety. When the Secretary of State meets directors and senior personnel of large companies which have a partnership relationship with their smaller suppliers, he should urge them to offer their expertise in safety to the smaller companies. Large companies can bring to bear all the information and awareness which hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned during the debate and give it to the small companies for their use. Such a partnership would be a useful way forward.
It is particularly sad that no regulation that I know of says that no piece of factory machinery can be imported into Britain unless it complies with our safety regulations. That would be an important development.
In my closing minutes, let me pay tribute to the nuclear industry's safety record. British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. at Springfield in my constituency has a high safety record. One aspect of the nuclear industry's approach to safety that I would commend above all to British industry is its regular challenge of the assumption that something which today is considered to be safe will always be so. It is no use assuming that because something is safe once, it cannot be improved upon. Challenging assumptions is an active safety policy. The nuclear industry has an excellent safety record, with a low number of accidents and persons killed at work. The only death at Sellafield in 1986 was the result of a motor vehicle accident on the site. The nuclear industry can teach us a great deal about safety, and I applaud the Government's work in that area.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I am glad that the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) had the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is fair to say that everyone who wished to speak has done so. I was particularly glad to hear the hon. Gentleman pay tribute to the work of trade unions in the important area of health and safety, and I trust that that is common ground between us.
The importance that the House attaches to this issue has been clear from remarks this evening. Thousands of people every year die or suffer from accidents or diseases. Sometimes those occur in highly publicised incidents, but most are individual cases which are only mentioned by the local press, and that is as far as the matter goes.
Accidents and diseases have been rising in many areas at a disturbing rate. We welcome the reduction in the number of fatalities, to which the Minister referred, but I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will accept that the most objective way of looking at the issue is to look at the combined fatal and serious injury rate — the number of incidents per 100,000 of employees— over a period.
In the Health and Safety Commission's report for the year ended 31 March 1986, the chairman states:
The fatal and major incidents rates for 1985 are greater than for 1981 by 31 per cent. in manufacturing industry as a whole; by 45 per cent. in construction and by 34 per cent. in agriculture.
When the Secretary of State refers to an evening out of injury rates, let us not forget that we are talking about a flattening out at a level which has increased sharply in many industries over that period and which is unacceptably high.
We were unconvinced by the Minister's reference to the Government's funding of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. Yes, there is a small increase in real terms in the figures that he quoted, as judged by the increase in prices throughout the economy, but there are two major reasons why that argument will not wash and both were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) when he opened the debate.
First, as with the Health Service, the internal costs incurred by the Health and Safety Executive have risen more rapidly than inflation. Secondly, and crucially, there has been an enormous expansion of the areas which the Health and Safety Executive and Commission have had to cover since the 1974 Act. I do not have time to go over all of them. There are 28 new sets of regulations; and in its memorandum to the Select Committee on Employment earlier this year, the Health and Safety Executive referred to seven major expanding areas.
One must mention the importance of the nuclear installations inspectorate after Chernobyl, and the important new responsibilities for gas that the executive has acquired. The HSE has responsibility for every gas appliance in our homes. For these reasons, we are right to assert that the resources that have been provided for the Health and Safety Executive by this Government have been utterly inadequate, and the small increase that has been announced falls a long way short of what is needed.
Total staff numbers in 1979 were 4,200: now they are 3,600, in spite of the increased responsibilities. There will be still fewer staff when the increases that the Secretary of State has announced are implemented. The factories inspectorate had 951 inspectors in 1971; the latest

available figures show that it has 823 now. The number of workplaces has risen since 1980 from 300,000 to 400,000. So we must judge the small increases that the Government belatedly announced earlier this year against the background of expanded areas of obligation for the Health and Safety Executive, and the number of inspectors who are available to carry out the work.
If the Government are interested in considering what action should be taken, I strongly commend to them the major TUC statement that was carried at this year's congress, entitled "Health and Safety at Work: The Way Forward". I hope that Ministers will carefully study the large number of recommendations contained in that important statement.
In view of the importance attached to occupational health, why are the Government not prepared to ratify and implement convention 161 on occupational health services? When will the Government bring forward comprehensive safety proposals for our young people on youth training schemes? Several hon. Members have rightly referred to the tragic incident at King's Cross. Is it not revealing that London Regional Transport is not going ahead with planned cuts in cleaning services? We need to know why the recommendations in the written report on the Oxford Circus station fire have not been implemented.
Whatever the outcome of the inquiry, I hope that the whole House accepts that there can be no question of responsibility being foisted on some junior manager. The board of London Regional Transport and the Government must accept responsibility for the consequences of their policy.
The change in policy announced by London Regional Transport has been reflected in changes in policy that have been made by British Rail. I mention briefly its plan to implement one-person operation on the Drayton Park to Moorgate line — a policy that was resisted by the National Union of Railwaymen. That has been mentioned in our debates on the Employment Bill. Although the NUR resisted the plan, it was only as a result of the King's Cross accident that British Rail announced that it was not going ahead with one-person operation. We should acknowledge the important role of the trade union in this area. The safety of staff and passengers is part of the NUR's constitution.
The Opposition are in no doubt that the Government's drive for profit on London Regional Transport and British Rail has been at the expense of safety standards. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to congratulate the emergency services on their bravery if the Government do not allocate the resources that they need to do the job. There is no doubt that the deregulation of bus services is already threatening safety standards on many of them, and while Conservative Members may think that privatisation of the electricity industry will be a great achievement, I assure them that the vast majority of the British people are terrified by the prospect of nuclear power stations being run for private profit. The cuts in local government are getting deeper and deeper. Hon. Members have spoken about the effect of those cuts on safety provision and on the health and safety responsibilities of local authorities. How much more suffering do we need to have before the Government give health and safety the priority that the British people demand?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): It is inevitable that in the time available to me I shall not be able to reply to all the points that were made by hon. Members. If what I and my right hon. Friend have said does not answer specific points made by hon. Members, we shall try to come back to them on those points.
The Opposition ask whether the Government are playing their part. On the evidence that we have heard in the debate, the answer is that the Government have most certainly played their part. It is necessary to address one or two points which emphasise that. The first is that there has been a great deal of talk in the debate that the Government have been responsible for financial cuts in the Health and Safety Commission's financial provision. Let us get it on the record once and for all that there have been no cuts whatever of that nature. There is no question of financial cuts in the HSC provision.
We appreciate that the HSC has had cuts in the sense that it has had extra obligations imposed upon it. Inevitably, it found itself stretched, but that cannot be laid at the Government's door. The reason for it is that, inevitably, the Government are trying to do more than has ever been done before in the field of safety in the work-place. That inevitably imposes strains. It was said that cuts have taken place, but we must emphasise that we have increased the financial provision to the Health and Safety Commission. It has been topped up twice in this year's financial provision and we have heard that there will be an increase of more than £6·7 million next year.
The Opposition have tried to say that that is insufficient and that, even with provision of that sort, the Health and Safety Commission will not be able to fulfil its tasks. The Opposition may take that view, but it is certainly not the view taken by the chairman of the commission. He has made it abundantly clear that these increased payments, and particularly the £6·7 million to be provided next year, will not only mean that the HSC will be able to discharge its statutory duties, but that it will be able to fund the 50 extra inspectors and the 10 specialist inspectors as well. That provision shows that the commission will be able to fulfil its statutory duties and will also be able to increase the number of inspectors in the way in which my right hon. Friend said.
I shall now say something about taking on inspectors. From listening to the Opposition, one would think that a direct causal link had been established between the number of inspectors and the number of accidents. In some ways, it would be nice if that were the position, but it is not that simple. There is no proven direct link between the number of accidents and the number of inspectors. Certainly, it is obvious that there must be an indirect connection, and because it is there the Government have said that the number of inspectors will be increased. It is too simplistic to say that, if we increase the number of inspectors, there will be an automatic decrease in the number of industrial accidents. If it were that easy—

Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has drifted in and out of this debate. In the short time available to me, I want to deal with some of the more substantial points. The effect that inspectors have is like a catalyst.

Mr. Heffer: Arrogant little basket.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Heffer: I said "baskef".

Mr. Speaker: Order. That may not be unparliamentary, but it is pretty nasty.

Mr. Heffer: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I said "a basket". If the Minister does not like it, that is too bad, but I said "basket" and nothing else.

Mr. Nicholls: It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has dined well this evening, and we should congratulate him on that.
I shall deal with some of the specific points that have been made. One of the first contributions came from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields). The hon. Gentleman's speech was remarkably tasteless, even by the standards of Militant. He tried to say that the Government have a completely callous and complacent attitude towards the safety of youth trainees. The hon. Gentleman suggested that there was carnage among young people. He expressed his contempt for the policies of the last Labour Administration and for this Government, and tried to suggest that there were many deaths on YTS.
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased that I am able to correct him on that assertion. Since 1983, about 1.6 million people have been on YTS. The figures for fatalities are that in 1983 there were three deaths; in 1984 there were four death; in 1985 there were four deaths; and in 1986 there were seven deaths. Every one of those deaths was a tragedy for the people involved. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that that was because of callousness by the Government is twisting the truth even more than the hon. Gentleman would want.
There is no evidence that people who are on YTS are any more at risk than any other young people in training. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) said that the MSC had taken swift action where placements were considered to be dangerous. In 1985–86,403 placements were closed and 320 were refused.

Miss Marjorie Mowlam: rose—

Mr. Nicholls: I do not have time to give way to the hon. Lady.
That is the measure of the attitude that the Government have adopted. It is remarkable that the hon. Member for Broadgreen saw fit to make such remarks, and even thought that he had to lace his speech with references to the motives of those who attend Prayers at the beginning of a parliamentary session. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not notice, but his speech was so tasteless that even Labour Members were squirming with embarrassment.
Comment was made about the role that small firms played in accidents. Obviously, a firm starting up may not have the necessary expertise in health and safety. That is a matter of which the inspectorate is aware. Some 80 per cent. of the factories inspectorate's visits are to small firms. In the current year, it will be increasing by 5 per cent. the amount of time that it spends seeking out new companies.
The point that must be made time and time again is that, for the most part, when inspections take place it is obvious that employers are not ignoring health and safety requirements out of malice, but that they need information about how to conduct themselves. Those who say that there is something inherently dangerous about small firms


are wrong. One could get rid of accidents in the workplace by not having any employment Obviously, that is not a sensible attitude.
A number of hon. Member in particular the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Mr.Strang)—

Mr. Frank Haynes: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 265

Division No. 92]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Douglas, Dick


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Allen, Graham
Dunnachie, James


Alton, David
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Anderson, Donald
Eadie, Alexander


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Ashdown, Paddy
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fatchett, Derek


Ashton, Joe
Fearn, Ronald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fisher, Mark


Barron, Kevin
Flannery, Martin


Battle, John
Flynn, Paul


Beckett, Margaret
Foster, Derek


Beith, A. J.
Fraser, John


Bell, Stuart
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Galbraith, Samuel


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Galloway, George


Bermingham, Gerald
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bidwell, Sydney
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Blair, Tony
George, Bruce


Boateng, Paul
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Boyes, Roland
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bradley, Keith
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gould, Bryan


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Grocott, Bruce


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Buchan, Norman
Haynes, Frank


Buckley, George
Heffer, Eric S.


Caborn, Richard
Henderson, Douglas


Callaghan, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Holland, Stuart


Canavan, Dennis
Home Robertson, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hood, James


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clay, Bob
Howells, Geraint


Clelland, David
Hoyle, Doug


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Illsley, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Ingram, Adam


Crowther, Stan
Janner, Greville


Cryer, Bob
John, Brynmor


Cummings, J.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cunningham, Dr John
Kennedy, Charles


Darling, Alastair
Lamond, James


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Leadbitter, Ted


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Leighton, Ron


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Dewar, Donald
Lewis, Terry


Dixon, Don
Litherland, Robert


Dobson, Frank
Livsey, Richard


Doran, Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)





McAllion, John
Richardson, Ms Jo


McAvoy, Tom
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


McCartney, Ian
Robertson, George


Macdonald, Calum
Robinson, Geoffrey


McFall, John
Rogers, Allan


McGrady, E. K.
Rooker, Jeff


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKelvey, William
Rowlands, Ted


McLeish, Henry
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Maclennan, Robert
Salmond, Alex


McNamara, Kevin
Sedgemore, Brian


McWilliam, John
Sheerman, Barry


Madden, Max
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Short, Clare


Marek, Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Martin, Michael (Springburn)
Snape, Peter


Martlew, Eric
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Spearing, Nigel


Meacher, Michael
Stott, Roger


Meale, Alan
Strang, Gavin


Michael, Alun
Straw, Jack


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morgan, Rhodri
Turner, Dennis


Morley, Elliott
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)
Wall, Pat


Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)
Wallace, James


Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie
Walley, Ms Joan


Mullin, Chris
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Murphy, Paul
Wareing, Robert N.


Nellist, Dave
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


O'Brien, William
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, Brian


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Winnick, David


Pendry, Tom
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pike, Peter
Worthington, Anthony


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wray, James


Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Quin, Ms Joyce



Radice, Giles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Randall, Stuart
Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Ken Eastham.


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn



Reid. John





NOES


Adley, Robert
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Alexander, Richard
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brazier, Julian


Allason, Rupert
Bright, Graham


Amess, David
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Amos, Alan
Brooke, Hon Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Browne, John (Winchester)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Aspinwall, Jack
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Buck, Sir Antony


Baldry, Tony
Budgen, Nicholas


Batiste, Spencer
Burns, Simon


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Burt, Alistair


Bellingham, Henry
Butcher, John


Bendall, Vivian
Butler, Chris


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Butterfill, John


Benyon, W.
Carrington, Matthew


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carttiss, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cash, William


Body, Sir Richard
Chapman, Sydney


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Churchill, Mr


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Boswell, Tim
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bottomley, Peter
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Conway, Derek


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bowis, John
Cope, John






Cormack, Patrick
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Couchman, James
Heddle, John


Cran, James
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Critchley, Julian
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Curry, David
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hind, Kenneth


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Day, Stephen
Holt, Richard


Devlin, Tim
Hordern, Sir Peter


Dickens, Geoffrey
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Dorrell, Stephen
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Dover, Den
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Dunn, Bob
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Durant, Tony
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Eggar, Tim
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Emery, Sir Peter
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Evennett, David
Irvine, Michael


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Jack, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Janman, Timothy


Farr, Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Favell, Tony
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Forman, Nigel
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Forth, Eric
Kilfedder, James


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Kirkhope, Timothy


Fox, Sir Marcus
Knapman, Roger


Freeman, Roger
Knox, David


French, Douglas
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fry, Peter
Lang, Ian


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Latham, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Lawrence, Ivan


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lee, John (Pendle)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Goodlad, Alastair
Lilley, Peter


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Gow, Ian
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
McCrindle, Robert


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Macfarlane, Neil


Gregory, Conal
MacGregor, John


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maclean, David


Grylls, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Madel, David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Malins, Humfrey


Hanley, Jeremy
Mans, Keith


Hannam, John
Maples, John


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Marland, Paul


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Harris, David
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Haselhurst, Alan
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hawkins, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Hayes, Jerry
Maude, Hon Francis


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hayward, Robert
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin





Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Miller, Hal
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Mills, Iain
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Miscampbell, Norman
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Summerson, Hugo


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moate, Roger
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thorne, Neil


Mudd, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Neale, Gerrard
Thurnham, Peter


Needham, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neubert, Michael
Trippier, David


Newton, Tony
Trotter, Neville


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Viggers, Peter


Page, Richard
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Paice, James
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waller, Gary


Raffan, Keith
Ward, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Warren, Kenneth


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wheeler, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Whitney, Ray


Rowe, Andrew
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Ryder, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wood, Timothy


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Younger, Rt Hon George


Speller, Tony



Squire, Robin
Tellers for the Noes:


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.


Stanley, Rt Hon John



Stevens, Lewis

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed. words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions or Amendments) and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House noting the Government's policy for replacing outmoded legislation with a new regime which maintains or improves health and safety standards tailored to modern needs, recognises that the prime responsibility for the reduction of accidents to workers lies with the employers, employees and others at the workplace; acknowledges the regulatory and other work of the Health and Safety Commission; and welcomes the Government's support for the Health and Safety Commission's efforts in the field of health and safety at work and in the community.

Select Committees

Sir Marcus Fox: I beg to move,
That Mr. Tim Boswell, Mr. John Carlisle, Mr. David Curry, Mr. Martyn Jones, Mr. Calum A. Macdonald, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Mr. Paul Marland, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Jerry Wiggin and Mrs. Ann Winterton be members of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and the amendment to the motion on the Defence Committee—
That Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Dick Douglas, Mr. John Evans, Mr. Bruce George, Sir Barney Hayhoe, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Michael Mates, Mr. Jonathan Sayeed, Mr. Neil Thorne and Mr. John Wilkinson be members of the Defence Committee—
in the name of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). It may be helpful to the House if I say that the debate will last for one and a half hours. It is a broad debate on Select Committees. At the end of one and a half hours I shall put the Question on the amendments that I have selected and the motions.

Sir Marcus Fox: There is a saying that there is nothing new in the world; it has all happened before. Let me tell new Members of the House that, when the Select Committees were first set up in 1979, 22 weeks elapsed before they sat. In 1983, after the general election, 26 weeks went by. In 1987, there has been an interval of 24 weeks. I suppose that one of the penalties of holding a general election in the summer is that the long summer recess intervenes and stretches the period out. If we ignore that, there is an average delay of some three months.
When we consider that Select Committees are set up for the whole Parliament—for some four and a half years— it is not surprising that there should be so much interest in the subject. Perhaps, as I hope, that denotes an acceptance that the Committees do an excellent job. The interest that is created is shown by the number of hon. Members applying to be members of the Committees, which increases every time that we have the task of setting them up.

Mr. Michael Martin: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why there is nothing on the Order Paper about the Scottish Select Committee? He has mentioned the time that it takes to set up the Committees. If there is no mention of the Scottish Select Committee and its make-up tonight, that means that the process will take longer, and the Committee will have less time to consider important matters that are crucial to Scotland and the Scottish people.

Sir Marcus Fox: I believe that the hon. Gentleman would have been one of the first to complain if the Scottish Select Committee had been included with the 13 Committees on the Order Paper. He would not have considered that a debate lasting one and a half hours would have been sufficient for Scottish Members to express their concern at the reduction in the number of hon. Members on that Committee, and on a number of other issues that have come up in the meantime.
I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that as soon as we can resolve the present impasse — indeed, if we

cannot—you, Mr. Speaker, will be informed, and there will be a debate so that the whole House can decide the issue.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the total number of names appearing for membership of the Home Affairs and Transport Select Committees is 10, whereas for all the others 11 names appear? Can he explain that discrepancy, and will he emphasise that it is not due to a lack of volunteers? I volunteered to be a member of the Transport Select Committee, but I have searched in vain for my name.

Sir Marcus Fox: May I reassure my hon. Friend that there is still hope for him? The reason those two vacancies were left is simply that out of a distribution of 83 places for Conservatives, 50 for Labour Members and 10 for the minor parties overall for the 13 Committees, the total numbers appointed are 81 Conservatives, leaving two vacancies; 52 Labour Members, which means that they have two extra; and eight instead of 10 members of the minor parties. We have left the two vacancies in the hope that our reasonableness will encourage those in the minor parties who are not satisfied with our appointments on Defence and Agriculture to take the places on Transport and Home Affairs on the basis that it is impossible to guarantee anyone's first choice. If that applies to the two major parties, it surely must be right for the minor parties.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food vote covers the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland? Therefore, the Agriculture Committee is very important to Northern Ireland Members. Northern Ireland had two Members on the Committee in the last Parliament. This time no Unionist has been selected, although a Member of the SDLP is to be on the Committee.

Sir Marcus Fox: The hon. Gentleman is right. The extra place last time came by courtesy of the Labour party which was prepared to give up a place to a minor party. That was not the case this time. I am sorry that there is nothing further we can do in that situation.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in the appointment of Committees which apply to Scotland or Wales there should be a different definition as there is for Grand Committees? Would it not be more appropriate if he were to take account of the voting patterns of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland when appointing the various Committees?

Sir Marcus Fox: I refer the hon. Lady to the debate which took place when the Select Committees were set up. The Committee of Selection was commissioned to take account of the balance in the United Kingdom and not to consider individual parts of the United Kingdom.
My position as Chairman of the Committee of Selection is unique in that I am popular and unpopular at the same time. It is important to realise that on Standing Committees, Statutory Instruments Committees and private Bill Committees our authority is clear. We have the power to appoint Members to those Committees. Some volunteers write in, there is an element of conscription and there is also work sharing. There are invisible Members who seek to avoid Committees, but I see it as part of the


work of the Committee of Selection to make sure that the work is shared as fairly as possible. The nomination of the Committees that I have just described is not subject to the scrutiny of or amendment by the House. In other words, the Committee of Selection has the final say.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Member said that the Committee was under an obligation to take cognisance of the United Kingdom writs. Does he recognise that two hon. Members dropped off from 80 per cent. is much less than two dropped off from 17 per cent.?

Sir Marcus Fox: The system is not quite as the hon. Gentleman described it. The Clerks, who are infallible, have a slide rule and we mark up or down to two decimal places, depending on whether it is above or below 5. We cannot go any further than that. I am sorry to disabuse the hon. Member.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood my point. He said that 80 seats were allocated to the Conservatives, leaving two to be filled, whereas two Northern Ireland Members have been left out of the four or five seats which would be allocated to them.

Sir Marcus Fox: It is a complicated question. The minority parties have 44 Members, ranging from one to 17, and four parties have three Members—the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionists and the Social Democratic Labour party. Each party has been allocated 0·68 of a place. If we work that out, those four minority parties have only three places between them. For the life of me, I cannot extend that beyond three places between the four parties of equal strength. I have tried to illustrate that we are prepared to leave a place on the Committees to allow one person from each of those parties to have a place.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: In the last Parliament it was a little difficult, to say the least, to set up these sloppy consensus Select Committees so that they could gallivant around the world, running out of money after nine months. The thing that intrigues me is how the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) has managed on this occasion to decide what to do with the SDP, since it has a provisional and an official wing of the party. How has he managed to allocate places between the two warring factions?

Sir Marcus Fox: I do not know much about sloppiness and travelling around the world, but I have had enough trouble with the existing minority parties without pursuing it any further. I move on to the 14 departmental committees.

Rev. William McCrea: As the hon. Member has told the House of his difficulty because of the number of minority parties, many of them having three Members, could he tell the House how he came to select only the SDLP Member out of the Ulster Members to sit on the very important Agriculture Committee?

Sir Marcus Fox: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will explain in a little detail the secret machinations that go on when the Select Committee meets every Wednesday. Hon. Members must remember that the House has given the Select Committee far fewer powers than the Standing Committees and other Committees I have described. We do not nominate; we recommend. It is for the House tonight to debate and amend the motions, if it thinks fit, and we will go along with that.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that before 1979 members of Select Committees were nominated by the House on a motion tabled by a Government Whip, after consultation with other political parties and interested Members; in other words—a phrase he loves—through the usual channels. I know that that is anathema to my hon. Friend. The Public Accounts Committee and House of Commons (Services) Committee members are still nominated in that way, as he well knows, but he must draw a distinction between those Committees and the Committees for which the Committee of Selection has responsibility. My hon. Friend is in danger of shooting the wrong fox.
I shall describe how the Committee works. Select Committees are a nightmare. The members are volunteers. Without any doubt, there is a surplus of possible members. It is impossible to give people their first choice. Many excellent colleagues are listed on the Order Paper. There may be more brilliant ones who have not been successful this time. We have to strike a balance between acknowledging the experience of certain hon. Members and giving other colleagues an opportunity to serve. That is not easy. I discuss such matters and take advice— some is asked for and some is freely given. I have been known to consult the Whips. To my knowledge, they are not outcasts in this place. When we make our recommendations, the choice rests absolutely with my four colleagues and myself. We represent the Government party on the Committee and we take full responsibility for our nominations. No criterion has ever been given to us, either by the House or by the Procedure Committee. lt would be of assistance if it did guide us—it is always free to do so.
In November 1979, my predecessor, Sir Philip Holland said, as recorded in "Erskine May"—that
the Committee enjoyed full discretion and was under no obligation to consult, to take advice or to indicate any criteria of choice.
It followed, therefore, that the Committee was procedurally free to choose whom it liked on whatever basis it thought applicable, subject to the eventual verdict of the House as a whole.
In practice, we follow three broad principles. First, the Government shall have a majority on each Select Committee. Secondly the overall number of members from each party nominated to the Select Committees should reflect the parties' balance in the House as a whole. Thirdly, no Minister, Whip, parliamentary private secretary or principal Opposition spokesman should be nominated. The second criterion gives us the most difficulty.
The figures worked out, as I have said, to two decimal places. I have dealt with the four minor parties which have three places on the Committees. We cannot give people their first choice.
By convention, members of the two main parties on the Committee decide which names shall go forward on behalf of their party. The names are put before the whole Committee for its approval. There are eight other parties with from one to 17 members. The minor parties negotiate among themselves who shall receive nominations. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) represents the Liberal party's interests. He is a remarkable man. It is no wonder that, when Liberal Members cannot agree, he asks the Committee to take a decision. It is not


easy to do so, but, in good faith, we must decide between the two or three names that are put to us. Again, it is subject to the decision of the whole House.
I gather that the debate may range wider than I have mentioned. It may include the chairmanship of Committees. The Committee of Selection has never concerned itself with deciding who shall be chairmen. It is no part of our duty to do so. Committee members would take exception if anyone other than themselves were to take on that responsibility.

Mr. Peter Fry: Although, with the utmost good faith, I accept my hon. Friend's statement that the Committee of Selection does not interfere, surely he will not suggest that there is no interference by the two Whips' Offices in the selection of chairmen. That is an established fact, and it has been so since 1979.

Sir Marcus Fox: My hon. Friend obviously did not listen very carefully to what I said. I said that the Committee of Selection takes no part in deciding who shall be Chairman. I cannot be answerable for what happens outside our Committee.
I believe that the hon. Members listed on the Order Paper will do extremely well the valuable work that we give them and I recommend them to the House.

Mr. William Ross: I wish to speak to my amendments to the Defence Committee motion, to leave out "Mr. John Cartwright" and after "Mr. John McWilliam" to insert "Mr. Ken Maginnis".
The long explanation that we have had has drawn all hon. Members' attention to the difficulty of achieving a fair balance of the various parties and the differing opinions represented in the House. However, in spite of the difficulties, it is absolutely vital that we get it right. The Ulster Unionist party does not worry at all if minor parties with only three hon. Members each get one place on the Committees. However, we have nine hon. Members and we seem only to be getting one place as well. That does not seem to be a very fair distribution.
The Chairman of the Committee of Selection drew attention to the long period that had to pass after the general election in 1983, and again this year, before we could reach this stage. It is only right that we should take time to consider who should sit on the Committees. The Committee of Selection must have got it very nearly right because all the amendments before us seek to change only two of the names. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members kindly not carry on conversations. It is difficult to hear.

Mr. Ross: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Committee of Selection got it very nearly right, I do not see why it should not prove itself to be totally infallible and get it 100 per cent. right next time round.
The Select Committees on Agriculture, on Defence, on Foreign Affairs, and on the Treasury and Civil Service all relate to Departments that directly exercise functions in Northern Ireland. The Department of Health and Social Security has a function that is almost direct because we have the concept of parity in social security payments and so on, and we are happy to have one member of our party on that Committee.
We have been told this evening that there are two spare places on the Transport and Home Affairs Committees, which do not have any direct application to Northern Ireland. It does not seem wise for an Ulster Unionist, or any Northern Ireland hon. Member, to be asked to serve on those Committees. The Army, on the other hand, is very active in Northern Ireland. It has a role there in defending the United Kingdom frontier. In Northern Ireland we have a modern type of guerilla war — a terrorist war. We have among us a man who has a tremendous amount of experience of these matters. We think that there is a real need for a voice from someone who has served in an active capacity in the part-time security forces in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) is far better fitted to put that point of view in the Select Committee on Defence.

Mr. Michael Mates: I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and he is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis)—I told him what I intended to say and I do so with difficulty and diffidence — was a member of the Defence Committee during the previous Parliament and he was an active, conscientious and good member. However, the hon. Member for Londonderry, East must acknowledge that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone left that Committee and that Committee was without a member for 11 months. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) returned to that Committee—he had been put off it so that the House could meet the needs expressed by the Official Unionist party. How does the hon. Member for Londonderry, East square his desire for his hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone to be a member of that Committee—again given that he left that Committee unmanned for 11 months because of the decision of the Official Ulster Unionist party—with the fact that it did not want to take part in the proceedings of the House? Do those two arguments match up?

Mr. Ross: It may appear a strange concept to the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), but the members of the Official Unionist party act on principle. At the last election, when we all stood in Northern Ireland for certain principles, we made it plain that we intended to return to the House. We had a mandate from our electors to do so. We have been back here since we won our seats and we intend to stay here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone served the Committee faithfully—as did the hon. Member for Hampshire, East. My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone has an expertise in defence that is not shared by any other Member of this House. I believe that he is the man who is best fitted to put the Northern Ireland point of view in that Committee. He has not only served with the Ulster Defence Regiment, but he was also a member of the Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association. As the House is aware, my hon. Friend's interests are not confined to the UDR because he takes a deep and responsible interest in the regular Army.
I believe that my hon. and gallant Friend is the best qualified person for membership of the Committee and I trust that the House will support us if there is a vote tonight.

Rev. William McCrea: I wish to speak to my amendment to leave out "Mr. Martyn Jones" and the amendment that seeks, after "Mr. Elliot Morley", to insert "the Reverend Ian Paisley".
I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), the proposer on behalf of the Committee of Selection. The proposer clearly stated that Her Majesty's official Opposition already have two extra proposed Committee members. Therefore I believe that the House can correct that tonight and ensure that the Opposition has only one extra person. That can be done if the House allows my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. I. Paisley) to take one of those two places. It is not enough for the hon. Member for Shipley to say that the official Opposition have more than they should and not to take the opportunity to correct that imbalance.
I believe that it is important that the Committees represent the democratic voice of the whole of the population of the United Kingdom. I listened with interest when the hon. Member for Shipley said that the Committees are selected on the basis of representing the whole of the United Kingdom and not particular parts of that kingdom.
I do not believe that Northern Ireland has proper and appropriate representation within the Committee structure. Under the present proposals the Social Democratic and Labour party has three Members in the House and has one member on the Agriculture Committee; the Official Unionist party has nine Members in the House and one member on a Committee, while the Ulster Democratic Unionist party has three Members in the House, but has no member on any Committee. It is interesting to suggest that there are two places left for the Ulster Members, ensuring that they were places that had no particular relevance to or particular impact on the lives of the people whom we represent in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does the position that the Committee of Selection has taken against the Ulster Unionists and their allies arise simply because they withdrew over the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Many hon. Members on the Government side of the House would like to know whether that is the case. We would understand and sympathise if that were the position.

Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I cannot and do not desire to attribute the reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North was removed from the Agriculture Committee. But I genuinely have my suspicions as to why that was done. It is interesting to note that the SDLP has been chosen for the Agriculture Committee and that no representative of the Unionists has been chosen. The House must ask why that is so and answer the question as to whether it is justified.
Before the last election there were two seats on the Agriculture Committee and they were allocated to two Unionist Members. What the Committee of Selection has now done is to remove both the representatives of the Unionist family and replace them by one member of the SDLP. When we consider the election results, we find that the SDLP represents 154,000 people while the Unionists represent 394,000. Yet the SDLP Member was chosen in

preference. And if I have understood correctly what has been said here tonight, the Committee of Selection deliberately chose the SDLP Member rather than one representing the majority community in Northern Ireland.
I would, therefore, ask the House to reconsider this matter. I believe that I can ask the House to do so because of the experience that my hon. Friend has in agriculture. I say without apology that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North has wide experience because he acted as the chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the Northern Ireland Assembly and was commended by all the people of Northern Ireland for his ability as the voice of the agricultural community. Yet those who are proposing membership of the Committee have deliberately acted against all this in choosing an SDLP Member.
We are simply asking for fair play. We believe that it must be remembered that agriculture is the largest single employer in the whole of Northern Ireland. It is the largest industry in Northern Ireland.
It is not enough to say that the official Opposition have more than enough representatives. Perhaps I could point out that of this Committee six members are Conservatives —and it is right that the Government party should have a majority on the Committee — four members are Labour and one is from the Social Democratic and Labour party. So six are Conservatives and five are Labour. Surely it is appropriate that one of those Labour members should step aside and that the House ensures that the voice of the agricultural community in Northern Ireland is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North, taking the place of the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones).

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Since the beginning of this Parliament, I have been aware of the widespread eagerness among hon. Members to see the departmental Select Committees set up. I congratulate the members of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee on the fact that their Committee has already been able to start work. There are just two general points that I should like to make in a short contribution to this debate, before the House decides on the Select Committee motions before us.
First, I think that the whole House appreciates the difficult task performed by the Committee of Selection. Following the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Procedure in 1977–78, the Committee was charged with the nomination of departmental Select Committees in the terms set out in Standing Order No. 104.
It can be an invidious duty to be asked to make judgments as to which of our fellow Members should be nominated to each departmental Select Committee. It is a tribute to the way in which the Committee of Selection carries out its work and produces nominations generally acceptable to the House, that only two alterations have been proposed to the nominations that have been put forward to be considered in today's debate.
I have listened with great attention to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. W. McCrea) on the composition of the Agriculture Select Committee, and by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) about the Defence Select Committee. I believe, however, that the Committee of Selection's work gives it an overall view which enables it to give due weight


to the minority parties in the departmental Select Committee system as a whole. For that reason I shall support its recommendations tonight.
My second point relates more generally to Select Committees. As I said at business questions last Thursday, the independence of Select Committees is, of course, something which I value highly. I believe the whole House does. Our present arrangements ensure that membership of the Committees is a matter for the House as a whole and I am sure that it is the right way for these matters to be decided. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has expressed some concern about the role of the Whips in the allocation between parties of the chairmanships of Select Committees. I hope that it will be helpful to the House—and reassuring to my hon. Friend—if I address this point.
Ultimately, it is for the Select Committees themselves to elect their own Chairmen. I hope that no hon. Member will dissent from that. In accordance with the conventions of the House, each Committee broadly respresents the composition of the Chamber. Thus, each has a majority of its members from the party in government, and it is reasonable to suppose that if each Committee considers in isolation the election of its Chairman, it will elect a member of that party.
There seem to me to be two substantial disadvantages in all the Select Committee Chairmen being from the majority party. First, I do not believe that this arrangement would recognise the rights of Opposition parties in a way which best reflects the traditions of the House, particularly in the context of Committees which are rightly proud of their all-party nature. Secondly, I do not think that the House itself would welcome arrangements which might seem to give the Government's views such sway over a Select Committee fiercely independent of the Government.
It is those disadvantages in all Select Committee Chairmen being from the majority party which cause me to believe that discussions through the usual channels about the basis on which the chairmanships might be allocated, provides a useful framework within which individual Select Committees elect their Chairmen.

Mr. Fry: I notice with great interest that my right hon. Friend said that it was up to the individual members of the Committee to select their Chairman. The problem is that my right hon. Friend is suggesting a procedure that has never been brought before the House for it to decide on. I for one would be happy if we had a formal arrangement on which the House had agreed, but I and some of my hon. Friends object to a sreies of arrangements about which we do not know and which are fixed between the two Whips' Offices. If the matter were made open and the House agreed, I for one would entirely accept what my right hon. Friend says.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. I understand what he says and I hope that nothing that I have said suggests that I expect a Select Committee to do other than to choose its Chairman as it thinks best. However, the system by which there are discussions through the usual channels gives Committee members some understanding of the overall basis upon which they

should then make their judgment. That is all that I am saying. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says many things to keep us going for quite a long time.
The allocation through the usual channels provides a useful framework within which individual Select Committees elect their Chairmen. It means that they do so in the knowledge that there have been negotiations to find an arrangement for allocation which would be generally acceptable on both sides of the Chamber and take proper account of the rights of the Opposition as well as the majority party.
Finally, although some hon. Members may find it inappropriate to talk in terms of party about Select Committees, I would make this point: it is by setting up these Committees on the basis of arrangements which are broadly acceptable to—

Mr. William McKelvey: Scottish Members have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox). It seems that there is an impasse facing the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, and I should like to know whether it will be overcome before the Christmas recess?

Mr. Wakeham: That is a matter for the Committee of Selection and not for me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) has said, the Committee of Selection has had a problem in resolving the matter. I hope that it will be able to do so and bring its proposals before the House. I undertake that there will be a debate in the House to settle any matters—

Mr. Dennis Canavan: When?

Mr. Wakeham: As soon as I receive a report from the Committee of Selection. This is something that we can discuss through the usual channels. There will be no great difficulty in arranging a debate before Christmas as we have not yet announced the date when the recess will begin.

Mr. John Home Robertson: It is the Government who face a problem with the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, not the Committee of Selection. It seems that the Conservative party must have a majority on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, but it was unsuccessful at the general election in getting a sufficient number of Conservative Members elected in Scotland to achieve such a majority. I understand that two Scottish Conservative Back Benchers have refused to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. This is a problem for the House, for the Government and for the Leader of the House himself. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will find ways of resolving the problem, so that a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs can monitor the work of the Scottish Office within weeks rather than months?

Mr. Wakeham: As soon as the Committee of Selection completes its work, or tells the House that it cannot do so, I shall arrange for a debate as soon as practicable to enable the House to decide the issue. That will be done through the usual channels. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has raised matters that are being considered by the Committee of Selection and it would be inappropriate for me to say what the Committee should or could do in dealing with the problem with which it is confronted.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Committee of Selection have any sway over Conservative Members who refuse to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?

Mr. Wakeham: The Committee has to abide by the Standing Orders of the House, and I am quite sure that that is what it will do.
In setting up Select Committees on the basis of arrangements that are broadly acceptable to, and give proper recognition to, both sides of the House, we shall best enable them to carry out their work in the objective and non-partisan way that we have come to expect from them.
Judging from the amendments, there is considerable interest in the structure of the departmental Select Committee system and the arrangements for the Committees' election. I shall consider carefully any comments on these matters which may be made in the debate. Our decision will be directed to the membership of the Select Committees. Unless we decide not to set up the Committees—I do not believe that to be the will of the House — our choice is a simple and relatively limited one. Either we accept the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster on the Select Committee on Agriculture and those in the name of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East on the Select Committee on Defence, or we accept the Committee of Selection's original nominations. As I said earlier, I shall support the motions in the name of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection.

11 pm

Mr. Frank Dobson: Everyone's view of Select Committees is coloured by their own experiences. It might be helpful if I explained one of the experiences that I had on the Select Committee on the Environment that has rather coloured my view of the Committees. On one occasion I was ruled out of order for asking what was described as "a political question". This appeared to be an effort to keep politics out of Parliament.
The Committee at that time was chaired by Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann, who later demonstrated the consistency of his commitment to keeping politics out of Parliament by joining the SDP. He then went even farther when he fought a by-election and achieved the double by keeping himself out of Parliament as well. Therefore, I have a slightly jaundiced view of the doings of Select Committees and occasionally I have sympathy for the views on the matter of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
We are considering the proposed membership of 12 Select Committees. As my hon. Friends from Scotland have already said, it ought to be 13 Select Committees. This has nothing at all to do with bad luck. The reason that we are not considering the 13th Select Committee is the incompetence of the Government and their inability to influence even their own Scottish Back Benchers.
It is ridiculous for the Leader of the House to blame the Committee of Selection for the fact that the Government cannot manage to turn up five hon. Members to serve on that Committee. It would be unsatisfactory if the House were asked to approve the membership of 12 Select Committees and to leave one out. However, it is uniquely unsatisfactory when the one that is left out is the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. That is because the Ministers at the Scottish Office are an unrepresentative

rump of Scottish Tories whose colleagues and policies were overwhelmingly and rightly rejected by the people of Scotland at the general election.
It has never been more necessary for the Select Committee to scrutinise the doings and wrongdoings of the Scottish Office and its agencies. The membership of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is not before us, because the Tories did so badly in Scotland at the general election. As a result, half the Scottish Tories are Ministers. They have to be, because that is the number needed to fill the Scottish Office. I do not know what can be said about the remainder. Some of them could be described as isolated eccentrics and we understand from rumour and from the newspapers that some of them are unwilling to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
Those hon. Members are clearly willing to speak up for the people of Scotland—or for the people in those bits of Scotland that they purport to represent. Much worse, they are trying to stop Scottish Labour Members speaking up for the people of Scotland, and they are seeking to stifle criticism of the Government's policies.

Mr. McKelvey: My hon. Friend may have observed that there are not only no Scottish Front-Bench Conservatives, but no Scottish Back-Bench Conservatives in the House to discuss an issue that is very dear to Scotland.

Mr. Dobson: Clearly, from the sort of behaviour that my hon. Friend points out, the Scottish Tories are heading for no representation in Scotland. What has been done is quite unacceptable. It is up to the Government and not a matter for the Committee of Selection—which is but a pawn, or a collection of pawns, in this matter—to put the Government's house in order. If the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is not established before Christmas or immediately on our return after the recess, there can be no question of any further discussion through the usual channels or any other helpful arrangements or agreements with the Opposition. It will be an affront to the Scottish people and to Labour Members. There will be no further co-operation until that Committee is established.
As to the establishment of Committees, it might be worth reminding the House that we are considering 12 memberships, but it was originally proposed that there should be a Select Committee to shadow the Law Officers and the Lord Chancellor's Department. I understand that it was turned down because Lord Hailsham—who was the last but one Lord Chancellor — did not like it. I hope that the Government will give favourable consideration to the setting up of that Select Committee. Further, in view of what is happening to science and technology in Britain, it might be as well to consider the re-establishment of a Science and Technology Committee.
As the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) said, there have been delays in sorting out the membership of Select Committees, and there are suggestions on the Order Paper that it should be done in different ways. I should point out to some of the most cynical of my hon. Friends that there are advantages in Whips having some say on the membership of Select Committees. Their involvement gives new Members a better chance of obtaining places on Select Committees than most other procedures, and Whips can also bring about a fairer spread between regions and interest groups.
I must tell some of my hon. Friends that their suggestions with regard to other methods of choosing the


members of Committees seem to be based on a misplaced supposition about the state of politics in Britain. Everyone seems to be obsessed with some misled French analysis of the British constitution of the 18th century. In political theory, the House controls the Government. As we all know, providing they have a decent majority, the Government control the House, which is a reversal of the procedure. By accepting the involvement of Whips, and by trying to come to some agreement between the two main parties, we are biting the bullet and doing the sensible thing.
At some time in the past, queries were raised about the appropriateness of what were understood to be Labour party nominations to the Defence Committee. There were suggestions that officials of the Ministry of Defence objected to the prospect of some Labour Members with particular views serving on those Select Committees. If those stories are true, those civil servants should look at their constitutional theory. They account to Members of Parliament; Members of Parliament do not account to civil servants, whoever they are or whatever Department they serve. If they are concerned about security, as they claim to be, they should look at the history of treachery in Britain. They need not look to the ranks of the Labour party for people who have betrayed their country. If they analyse those people who have been found out and found guilty of treachery they will discover that, generally, they were ex-public school, ex-Oxbridge people of apparently impeccable establishment credentials. I hope that we shall hear no more about that matter.

Mr. David Winnick: With regard to treachery, is it not a fact that under the 18B regulations, which locked Moseley up from 1939 onwards as a threat to the security of this island, the only Member of Parliament who was detained during the war years was a Captain Ramsay, who was very much a Tory Member of Parliament?

Mr. Dobson: The only creditable matter that I can think of in that arrangement is that apparently the security services managed to rumble him at the time.
There is reference on the Order Paper to the freedom of action of members of Committees. In theory, the members of the Committees, and the Committees themselves, have a great deal of freedom of action. If those hon. Members wish to exercise that, and if they feel that they are being thwarted by the Government or the Civil Service, they could carry the House with them if they came to the House and asked for the additional powers to get people before them and to see all the papers involved.
That point brings me back to the Defence Committee. Some people seem to think that the Westland affair displayed one of the glories of the Select Committee system. Certain members of the Defence Committee did stalwart work during the Westland affair trying to discover the facts that were being hidden from the public. Basically, the Government and the head of the Civil Service treated the Defence Committee with utter contempt. Had that happened in the United States, had a Republican President of the United States allowed the United States Administration to treat a committee of Congress with the same contempt, even Barry Goldwater would have moved for the impeachment of that President.
It is idle for us to pretend that our Select Committees have in practice the powers, status or authority of the congressional committees in the United States. I hope, therefore, that the new Committee members will join those members of Committees who have tried to exercise their muscle in the past and, if there is trouble or obstruction from the Government or the Civil Service when a Select Committee tries to get at the truth, I hope that the Government Back Benchers who make up the majority in these matters will support the Select Committees and not cravenly support the Government or anyone else obstructing the Select Committees. If that does not happen, I believe that the Select Committees will eventually fall into disrepute.
A lot of hard work has been done by Select Committee members and much useful information has been gained and released. However, the Government have taken scarcely a blind bit of notice of anything that any of the Select Committees have said. In those circumstances, we must regard the Select Committee system as on trial. Besides scrutinising the Government and keeping an eye on them, the House must scrutinise the Select Committees to ensure that they are discharging their functions.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I know that my hon. Friend is being his usual charitable self. However, will he rephrase his comments? Would it be more a propos not to ask the House to scrutinise the Select Committees, but to ask the House to pay more attention to the Committee's reports and so use the reports more constructively.

Mr. Dobson: I fully accept the view that my hon. Friend has expressed. He did such stalwart work in difficult circumstances — long service in hard stations — on the Defence Committee. It is difficult for hon. Members to make much use of Select Committee reports if they never come before the House. The House must take the Select Committees more seriously if they are to discharge the functions for which they were established.
In commending the unamended memberships to my right hon. and hon. Friends, I do so on the basis that we need better and more vigorous performances from the Select Committees, and, above all, we need the backing of hon. Members on both sides of the House to give the Select Committees the muscle to do the job that they were established to do.

Mr. McKelvey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for me at the end of the debate to divide the House on the membership of each of the Select Committees as listed if I feel that there has been no adequate response to the question of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? Would it be in order for me to divide the House on each of the Committees?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. McKelvey: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I said that that would be in order.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: To say that the appointment of the Select Committees that we are debating is long overdue would be a masterly understatement. Therefore, I hope that the House will come to a clear-cut decision in favour of their establishment today. However, having said that, one must recognise that there have been considerable difficulties in


the setting-up of those Committees. No one who has listened to the debate or to the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, can doubt that these are complex matters and that a great many individual and group interests are involved.
Nonetheless, it is surely absurd that we have had to wait six months before we have reached the stage where we are likely to reach a decision on these matters. Even if this Parliament goes its full term, we shall have lost about one tenth of the entire Parliament without the Committees being able to do their job of scrutinising the Executive and making sure that the Departments for which they are responsible are properly monitored.
Therefore it is tremendously important that we should ensure that we do not for a third time run into the same problem as we recognise has happened on this occasion and as happened in 1983. It is not as if these problems were not foreseen in the previous Parliament. I remind the House of the first report of the Liaison Committee in April 1985 which referred to this very matter and stated:
The House met after the last general election on 15th June 1983. The select committees, since they had continued to exist under Standing Orders, only needed to be nominated before they could start work. It can be appreciated that, with so many new Members in the House, it took a little time to decide on suitable names. But we feel that the delay, which continued until the House nominated the departmental committees on 9th and 14th December, was excessive.
However, we find ourselves in precisely the same position as in 1983. The Liaison Committee also recommended:
Standing Orders should be amended so that a suitable time-limit is imposed to ensure that committees are nominated soon after any general election.
As my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Committee of Selection pointed out, it is perfectly true that there was a recess between the date of the election and tonight, and obviously that causes some problems. Nonetheless, it is a delay of six months. Had we managed, as the Liaison Committee recommended that we should, to set up the Committees in the recess, although the House was not sitting, the Clerks and members of those Committees could have been working through the summer recess. The House had allocated resources to those Committees so that they could do their work. It is generally agreed that that work is extremely valuable and the number of hon. Members in the Chamber this evening shows the extent to which the House regards the matter as important.
In replying to the Liaison Committee's report, the Government pointed out that the matter was,
far from being exclusively in the Government's hands; and, especially after a General Election, a considerable time may have to elapse before it is known, for example, whether particular Opposition Members will be available to serve.
That is one of the problems that we have been facing. However, surely it should not be necessary for the delay on that point to lead to the kind of delay that we experienced both in 1983 and now.
I considered whether there are other possible solutions to this problem. The Public Accounts Commission, for example, runs over from one Parliament to another. It was re-established as soon as we returned after the election, with those hon. Members who still remained Members of the House. Of course, we cannot do that with the Select Committee structure because, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has pointed out, the Committees have a Government majority and if the parties were to change

places at election time, we should end up with a rump of Committees, which, until they were reconstituted, would probably, since the old system had a majority of Government Members, have a majority of Opposition Members.
However, the solution is not necessarily to be found on those lines. I believe that the only answer is to set a deadline because that is the only way in which we shall ensure that we do not waste an enormous amount of time. Clearly, that should be done in terms of sitting days, rather than on an absolute number of days because there may be the problem of the recess, as has been mentioned.
I am anxious that we should proceed without further delay, so I shall not delay the House for more than a moment longer.

Mr. Mates: I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend, who is echoing the plea of our hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee on Selection that he needs more help to resolve the dilemmas facing him. Could we not all ask that this be referred to the Procedure Committee so that a ruling could be given and the House could take a vote on how we should proceed at the beginning of the next Parliament?

Mr. Higgins: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but it is a matter which has previously been considered by the Liaison Committee, which is probably a more appropriate body to consider this issue, as it deals with general problems affecting the co-ordination of Select Committees. The House will undoubtedly wish to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion, but we have already had a specific recommendation from that Committee and I hope that the Government Front Bench will be prepared to reconsider their original reply. That is the only way that we can avoid this situation arising on yet another occasion, to the detriment of the House.
Both in 1979 and 1983 a considerable number of Committees had Opposition Chairmen. That is of great importance if the system is indeed to appear to be an all-party system, representing the House of Commons as a whole. I understand my right hon. Friend's point and I certainly agree that this is important. However, I have one fear on this score. This Government under successive Leaders of the House, all of whom have supported the Select Committee system enthusiastically, have gone along with the all-party approach. We should consider whether, to avoid the participation of the usual channels and to ensure that this advantage is preserved for the future, some more clearly established convention should be made that a certain number of Select Committee Chairmanships go to Opposition Members in the same way that the convention exists, for example, with the Public Accounts Committee.
I hope that we can reach a rapid conclusion on this matter so that the Select Committees can get on with the work which all hon. Members agree is of great value.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I rise to add my anxiety and anger to that which the House has already heard about the Government's failure to establish the Scottish Affairs Select Committee.
Our argument is not with the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) who, I am prepared to accept, has gone about the matter with integrity and good purpose. Our complaint


is entirely with the Government and their dealings with their own Scottish representatives. I can sympathise with the hon. Gentleman who may in the past have dealt with various forms of intransigence but who, I am sure, has never dealt with such crass mediocrity as he finds in that curious quintet of Scottish Back-Bench Tory Members.
The Government's failure to allow, or to insist on, the establishment of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee is astonishing for four reasons. First, whether hon. Members like it or not, there is a distinctive Scottish complexion to the make-up of politics and the division of parties. If the Tory party is determined simply to ignore that division and dismiss that different complexion, it is building up problems and difficulties far beyond anything that can be imagined at present.
The second reason is that the Scottish Office, uniquely among the Departments covered by the Select Committee, has a vast range of interests to represent, and thus to scrutinise. Why on earth we can have 12 Committees set up to cover specific Departments, but cannot have a 13th Committee to deal with a Department that covers everything from sport to agriculture, education and health in Scotland, may be comprehensible to Conservative Members, but will certainly not be comprehensible to the people of Scotland. They will see it as exonerating yet again their judgment as the general election — a judgment upon the crassness and ignorance of the Tory party in that country.

Mr. George Robertson: While he is on this line of argument, would my hon. Friend care to reflect that the lack of attention of Scottish Conservative Members to the issue under consideration tonight is no more aptly illustrated than by the fact that not a single one of them has bothered to come to the Chamber for this vitally important debate? Does that not underline their lack of concern for the Scottish people and their interests?

Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) for drawing attention to a fact of which the Scottish people are increasingly aware that not only the ministerial but the Back-Bench Scottish Conservatives are inept, useless, seldom here and more likely to be trawled from the liquid dungeons of the House than to be found here at a time such as this?
Those of us who have been here for only a few months have already become used to the tartan comedy shows of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), swaying in the non-existent breeze as he talks incomprehensible nonsense to the House. We have grown accustomed to the hon. Member for Tayside (Mr. Walker) turning up occasionally in his kilt to inform the House and his Front Bench that he is so idle that he will not even participate in the basic functions of the Scottish Select Committee. We have grown used to the five-man comedy turn of Scottish Back-Benchers. However, the message that goes out again from the House is that they serve no interests except their own tiny, parochial, selfish interests. That is what will make the five turn into three, and the three turn into dust, at the next general election.
The third reason for my belief that the Committee should be set up is that, whatever may be said about other Select Committees, there is no denying that the Scottish Select Committee has done useful work during its career.

We often hear boasts from Conservative Members about the work of Locate in Scotland. Let no hon. Member be in any doubt that Locate in Scotland would not exist, far less be doing good and useful work for the Scottish economy, had its development been left to the Conservatives. Let no one doubt that it is because of the work of the Scottish Select Committee that Locate in Scotland exists today.

Mr. Douglas: We are taking a good deal of time on this issue. I think that the procedure would be facilitated if we could have an assurance from the Leader of the House —perhaps he will seek to intervene on my hon. Friend's remarks—that the Scottish Select Committee will be a major priority for him, and that, given the work of the Selection Committee, he will try to expedite the matter before the Christmas recess.

Mr. Wakeham: May I make the position clear as I understand it? I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, that he hopes to finish his deliberations and to make the appropriate report to the House on the views of his Committee on the Scottish Select Committee. When that is done I undertake to arrange as soon as practicable a debate upon it.

Mr. Wilson: I value that undertaking, but before I sit down I will ask for a time scale.
To finish the point about the valuable work that has been done by the Scottish Select Committee, there are many hundreds of Ministry of Defence jobs in Glasgow that would not be there had it not been for the work of the Scottish Select Committee. Many areas of Government have been subject to valuable scrutiny by that Committee.
Fourthly, the nonsense is that there are dozens of hon. Members ready and willing to serve on it. The reason that it will not be set up is the attachment of the Government to extremely complicated arithmetic. They have only five Back Benchers. At least two of them are so numb and thick in stating that they will not serve on the Committee—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker.: Order. Hon. Members should try to keep the temperature down.

Mr. Wilson: We hear a great deal from the Government side about the virtues of not yielding to blackmail. The astonishing fact is that the two hon. Members who represent Perthshire have succeeded in holding the House to blackmail. That is why we do not have this Committee. Many hon. Members are willing to serve on it and there is much work to be done. I ask for an undertaking—

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: rose—

Mr. Wilson: I am not giving way. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that we have only 14 minutes more.

Mr. Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have had a deliberate personal attack on two of my hon. Friends. Can we have an assurance from the hon. Member for Cunningham, North (Mr. Wilson) that he informed them in advance, in accordance with the custom of the House?

Mr. Speaker.: That is a custom which the hon. Gentleman, who is a new Member, may not know about. It is a convention that if an hon. Member is to be attacked in the House, he is forewarned.

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret that the two hon. Members are not here to hear themselves being attacked. I withdraw with pleasure.
There is a need for the Scottish Select Committee and there are hon. Members willing to serve on it. The Government should set up the Committee or be answerable to the people of Scotland.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I contribute to the debate more out of sadness than anger. I was looking just now on the Order Paper for the composition of the Scottish Select Committee. It was not there. Yet virtually three quarters of the speeches and interventions in this short debate have been directed to something that does not appear on the Order Paper. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that to have a debate of merely one hour and a half on a matter that is of deep concern to the House is inadequate and an abuse of Back Benchers.
I listened with great interest to the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). If the Front Bench had listened to what he said, a great deal of what has happened in recent months would not be repeated, to the advantage of the House.
If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House expects me to believe for one moment that the usual channels on this occasion have not exerted abnormal influence over the composition of Select Committees, I am afraid he misunderstands me. I do not go along with what he said.
I am aware, from information that has come to me, that the Committee of Selection, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), does not consider every application put to it by hon. Members, because the Labour party presents a list of those Members it wants nominated to the Select Committees. Therefore, the integrity and independence of the Select Committees are clearly in doubt and have been undermined and debased by the activities of the usual channels of the House. As a Member of the House, I follow the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing. I have served uninterrupted for 13 years on the Select Committee for Social Services. In that time, under the leadership of the redoubtable lady, Ms. Renee Short, we had unanimous Committee reports. We did not need to have the usual channels to dictate to us a balance. The Select Committees can do for themselves what, sadly, the Chamber so often fails to do to establish common ground and find unity in the interests of the people.

Mr. McKelvey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winterton: I will not give way. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), has a Scottish constituency and has had more than a fair run in the debate.
As an evergreen, long-serving Back Bencher—and I consider that I will continue to be a long-serving Back Bencher — I believe entirely and totally in the Select Committee system. It is one way in which genuine Back

Benchers can exercise some influence, albeit no power, over the Executive and Government. To my mind, it is a tragedy that the usual channels have sought to influence the Committees as to who should be their Chairmen, before the Committees have even met.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winterton: I am sorry, but there is very little time and I wish to get one or two things on record.
It is important that Committees have the integrity and independence to elect their own chairmen. For my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to say that the usual channels are merely giving guidance to those Committees is absolute rubbish, and he knows it. I say to the Front Bench that, for the Conservative party never to have taken control by way of the Chair of the Select Committee for Social Services shows how disdainful so many quarters of the Conservative party are of social services. It is the biggest spending Department of State, £45 billion, and not once in 20 years have we taken the Chair of that Committee. I believe that the chairmanship was offered to the Conservative party on this occasion, but that it was declined because the party was not prepared to trade off another Committee. I think that that is a great shame.[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to give the hon. Gentleman a fair hearing. I am finding it difficult to hear down here.

Mr. Winterton: For the Back Benchers of the House — you, Mr. Speaker, safeguard their interests — the Select Committees are the only way in which they can positively and constructively help the country and guide and monitor the Government. I believe in Select Committees and I say to both Front Benches of the House,"If you genuinely are concerned"—

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winterton: I do not intend to give way to the hon. Lady. No doubt she will have ample opportunity to display her talents on the Select Committee.
I plead with the House to safeguard the integrity and independence of the Social Services Select Committee and all other Select Committees of the House. One day, the Government may be on the Opposition Benches. [Interruption.]

Mrs. Wise: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Lady raising a point of order, or was she unable to speak in the debate?

Mrs. Wise: I believe that it is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, is it in order for the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) to seek to interfere in the representation of Labour Members by tabling motions naming Labour Members? Secondly, in view of the advice given to one of my hon. Friends about communicating with colleagues in the House, is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to name other hon. Members on the Order Paper without consultation or information being given to them?

Mr. Speaker: It was perfectly in order for the hon. Gentleman to put down his amendment. The hon. Lady should know that it was not selected for Division.

Mr. Winterton: I believe that in everything that I have done about the re-establishment of Select Committees I have adhered to the procedures, rules, regulations and precedents of the House. I intend to continue to do so. Not only do I value the Select Committee system as a way in which I and many of my colleagues can play a positive, constructive part in the House, but in addition I believe in the democratic procedures of the House.

Mr. Graham Allen: The creation of departmental Select Committees was one of the greatest constitutional steps forward this century. However, at this point in our history, the departmental Select Committees need the support of all hon. Members if they are to progress any further. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) pointed out, they are now at something of a crossroads. If they are left to their own devices, to the patronage of the Whips or to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, they may decline into misuse and abuse. If they are supported and reinvigorated, they may find a real role in the House in defending and extending our democracy.
The reason that we have had such long delay in 1987 is pretty much the same as that in 1983: the Executive— the Government—do not wish to see strong, effective departmental Select Committees. In 1983, the reason that was put forward was that the shadow Cabinet had not completed its elections. There was no reason why shadow Cabinet elections should delay the nomination of Select Committees. If vacancies had arisen, they could have been filled in the normal way. When individuals have been promoted, and thus have vacated their seats, new elections for nominations would take place. In 1987, the excuses that were put forward related to rows over chairmanship — which had more to do with petty jealousies than with the constitutional significance of Select Committees — and the role of the Select Committee on Defence. That is clearly a far more serious matter. It is bad enough having people in one's own party telling one who one must have on a Select Committee, but it is intolerable for people in the Ministries or Departments that are to be supervised or monitored to tell one who should be on such Committees, and the House should not put up with it.
The only way forward is for hon. Members to take control of Select Committees. I have asked the Leader of the House to consider a series of proposals and to re-establish the Select Committee on Procedure, so that it may then consider such proposals and come back to the Floor of the House with proposals for improvement. One such proposal is the direct election of members to Select Committees, with each hon. Member having one vote for a member of each Select Committee. With one vote per hon. Member, there would be no question of a slate of 10 or 12 getting elected. Indeed, a broad cross-section of hon. Members would be represented.[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has two minutes more and there is a great deal of noise. I would ask hon. Members to listen and not to carry on private conversations.

Mr. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If each Member had one vote for each Select Committee place, a broad cross-section of hon. Members would be elected. We could have a system whereby each member elected would need to get at least 50 votes.
Another essential reform is that the Select Committees, by Standing Order of the House, should be established by a given date specified in the Standing Orders. In addition, the Select Committees' powers need to be re-examined—notably we need a power for Bills to be referred to a Select Committee after Second Reading for a period of six or eight weeks so that the Select Committee, as of right, can take evidence and interview witnesses before a Bill proceeds—

It being one and a half hours after the motion was entered upon,MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order of the House [27 November], to put the Question on any amendment selected by him which was then moved and then to put successively the Question on the motion relating to Agriculture and any Questions necessary to dispose of the motions in the name of Sir Marcus Fox relating to Defence, Education, Science and Arts, Employment, Energy, Environment, Foreign Affairs, Home Affairs, Social Services, Trade and Industry, Transport and Welsh Affairs, which were then made, and of any amendments thereto which had been selected by him and which were then moved.

Amendment proposed, to leave out 'Mr. Martyn Jones.'.—[Rev. William McCrea.]

Question put,That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 34, Noes 172.

Division No. 93]
[11.46 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Ashdown, Paddy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Beggs, Roy
Paisley, Rev Ian


Beith, A. J.
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Budgen, Nicholas
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Cran, James
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fearn, Ronald
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Stevens, Lewis


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Howells, Geraint
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Janman, Timothy
Wallace, James


Kennedy, Charles
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Kilfedder, James
Winterton, Nicholas


Maclennan, Robert



Maginnis, Ken
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Rev. William McCrea and Mr. Clifford Forsythe.


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clay, Bob


Ashton, Joe
Clelland, David


Baldry, Tony
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Conway, Derek


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Crowther, Stan


Bermingham, Gerald
Cryer, Bob


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cummings, J.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Boswell, Tim
Cunningham, Dr John


Boyes, Roland
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bradley, Keith
Darling, Alastair


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dewar, Donald


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dixon, Don


Buchan, Norman
Dobson, Frank


Buckley, George
Doran, Frank


Butcher, John
Dorrell, Stephen


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Douglas, Dick


Canavan, Dennis
Dover, Den


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Cartwright, John
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Durant, Tony






Eastham, Ken
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Emery, Sir Peter
Meale, Alan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michael, Alun


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Forman, Nigel
Miller, Hal


Foster, Derek
Mills. Iain


Fox, Sir Marcus
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Morgan, Rhodri


Galloway, George
Morley, Elliott


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Murphy, Paul


George, Bruce
Nellist, Dave


Golding, Mrs Llin
Neubert, Michael


Goodhart, Sir Philip
O'Neill, Martin


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Page, Richard


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Pendry, Tom


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pike, Peter


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Grocott, Bruce
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hayes, Jerry
Prescott, John


Haynes, Frank
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Raffan, Keith


Hinchliffe, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Home Robertson, John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hoyle, Doug
Rowe, Andrew


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Rowlands, Ted


Hume, John
Ryder, Richard


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Salmond, Alex


Illsley, Eric
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Ingram, Adam
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Squire, Robin


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lawrence, Ivan
Stott, Roger


Leadbitter, Ted
Strang, Gavin


Leighton, Ron
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lewis, Terry
Thurnham, Peter


Lightbown, David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Vaz, Keith


McAllion, John
Waddington, Rt Hon David


McCartney, Ian
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Macdonald, Calum
Wall, Pat


McFall, John
Waller, Gary


McGrady, E. K.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wareing, Robert N.


McKelvey, William
Warren, Kenneth


Maclean, David
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McLeish, Henry
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McNamara, Kevin
Wheeler, John


McWilliam, John
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Madden, Max
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wilson, Brian


Mallon, Seamus
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Worthington, Anthony


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)



Martlew, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Mates, Michael
Sir Michael Shaw and Sir John Stradling Thomas.


Maxton, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

AGRICULTURE

Ordered,
That Mr. Tim Boswell, Mr. John Carlisle, Mr. David Curry, Mr. Martyn Jones, Mr. Calum A. Macdonald, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Mr. Paul Marland, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Jerry Wiggin and Mrs. Ann Winterton be members of the Agriculture Committee.

DEFENCE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Dick Douglas, Mr. John Evans, Mr. Bruce George, Sir Barney Hayhoe, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Michael Mates. Mr. Jonathan Sayeed, Mr. Neil Thorne and Mr. John Wilkinson be members of the Defence Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Amendment proposed, to leave out 'Mr.John Cartwright'.—[Mr. William Ross]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 41, Noes 133.

Division No. 94]
[11.59 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Miller, Hal


Beggs, Roy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Nellist, Dave


Bermingham, Gerald
Paisley, Rev Ian


Budgen, Nicholas
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Clay, Bob
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Cohen, Harry
Rowe, Andrew


Corbyn, Jeremy
Skinner, Dennis


Crowther, Stan
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Cryer, Bob
Stanbrook, Ivor


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Stevens, Lewis


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Thorne, Neil


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Winterton, Nicholas


Janman, Timothy
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kilfedder, James



McWilliam, John
Tellers for the Ayes


Maginnis, Ken
Mr. William Ross and Rev. William McCrea.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin



Meale, Alan





NOES


Alton, David
Duffy, A. E. P.


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Ashdown, Paddy
Durant, Tony


Ashton, Joe
Eastham, Ken


Baldry, Tony
Emery, Sir Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Beith, A. J.
Fearn, Ronald


Bevan, David Gilroy
Forman, Nigel


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Foster, Derek


Boswell, Tim
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boyes, Roland
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bradley, Keith
George, Bruce


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Buckley, George
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Haynes, Frank


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Cartwright, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Churchill, Mr
Hinchliffe, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Home Robertson, John


Clelland, David
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howells, Geraint


Cran, James
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cummings, J.
Hume, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cunningham, Dr John
Illsley, Eric


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Ingram, Adam


Darling, Alastair
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Dixon, Don
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dobson, Frank
Kennedy, Charles


Dorrell, Stephen
Leadbitter, Ted


Douglas, Dick
Leighton, Ron


Dover, Den
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark






Lightbown, David
Salmond, Alex


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


McCartney, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McGrady, E. K.
Squire, Robin


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Maclean, David
Stott, Roger


Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Mallon, Seamus
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Martlew, Eric
Thurnham, Peter


Mates, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Maxton, John
Vaz, Keith


Michael, Alun
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mills, Iain
Wallace, James


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waller, Gary


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morgan, Rhodri
Wareing, Robert N.


Neubert, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Page, Richard
Wheeler, John


Pendry, Tom
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wiggin, Jerry


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Raffan, Keith
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rhodes James, Robert



Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Tellers for the Noes:


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Sir John Stradling Thomas and Sir Michael Shaw.


Rowlands, Ted



Ryder, Richard

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 31.

Division No. 95]
[12.09 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Eastham, Ken


Allen, Graham
Emery, Sir Peter


Alton, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Ashdown, Paddy
Forman, Nigel


Ashton, Joe
Foster, Derek


Baldry, Tony
Fox, Sir Marcus


Batiste, Spencer
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Beith, A. J.
George, Bruce


Bermingham, Gerald
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bevan, David Gilroy
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Boyes, Roland
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Grocott, Bruce


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Buchan, Norman
Haynes, Frank


Buckley, George
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Home Robertson, John


Cartwright, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Churchill, Mr
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howells, Geraint


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoyle, Doug


Conway, Derek
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cran, James
Illsley, Eric


Crowther, Stan
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cunningham, Dr John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Darling, Alastair
Kennedy, Charles


Dewar, Donald
Leighton, Ron


Dixon, Don
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Terry


Dorrell, Stephen
Lightbown, David


Douglas, Dick
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Dover, Den
McAllion, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Macdonald, Calum


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McGrady, E. K.


Durant, Tony
McKay, Allen (Penistone)





Maclean, David
Ryder, Richard


Maclennan, Robert
Salmond, Alex


McNamara, Kevin
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


McWilliam, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mallon, Seamus
Squire, Robin


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stott, Roger


Martlew, Eric
Strang, Gavin


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Maxton, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michael, Alun
Thurnham, Peter


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Miller, Hal
Vaz, Keith


Mills, Iain
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wallace, James


Morgan, Rhodri
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morley, Elliott
Wareing, Robert N.


Murphy, Paul
Warren, Kenneth


Neubert, Michael
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wheeler, John


Page, Richard
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Pendry, Tom
Wiggin, Jerry


Pike, Peter
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wilson, Brian


Prescott, John
Worthington, Anthony


Quin, Ms Joyce
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Raffan, Keith



Rhodes James, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Sir John Stradling Thomas and Sir Michael Shaw.


Rossi, Sir Hugh



Rowlands, Ted





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Beggs, Roy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Nellist, Dave


Canavan, Dennis
Paisley, Rev Ian


Clay, Bob
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Cohen, Harry
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Corbyn, Jeremy
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Wall, Pat


Hinchliffe, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Janman, Timothy



Kilfedder, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Maginnis, Ken
Mr. William Ross and Rev. William McCrea.


Mahon, Mrs Alice



Meale, Alan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Dick Douglas, Mr. John Evans, Mr. Bruce George, Sir Barney Hayhoe, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Michael Mates, Mr. Jonathan Sayeed, Mr. Neil Thorne and Mr. John Wilkinson be members of the Defence Committee.

EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND ARTS

Motion made, and Question put,
That Mr. David Evennett, Mr. Martin Flannery, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Win Griffiths, Mrs. Maureen Hicks, Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson, Mr. Timothy Raison, Mr. Gerry Steinberg, Mr. Jack Thompson, Mr. Malcolm Thornton and Sir Gerard Vaughan be members of the Education, Science and Arts Committee. — [Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

The House divided:Ayes 135, Noes 15.

Division No. 96]
[12.20 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Ashdown, Paddy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Ashton, Joe






Baldry, Tony
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Batiste, Spencer
Macdonald, Calum


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
McGrady, E. K.


Beith, A. J.
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Bermingham, Gerald
Maclean, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
McWilliam, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Mallon, Seamus


Boswell, Tim
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Boyes, Roland
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Mates, Michael


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Maxton, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Buckley, George
Meale, Alan


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Michael, Alun


Canavan, Dennis
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Miller, Hal


Cartwright, John
Mills, Iain


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Conway, Derek
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Morgan, Rhodri


Cran, James
Morley, Elliott


Crowther, Stan
Murphy, Paul


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Neubert, Michael


Dewar, Donald
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Dixon, Don
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Dobson, Frank
Page, Richard


Dorrell, Stephen
Pendry, Tom


Douglas, Dick
Pike, Peter


Dover, Den
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Prescott, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Quin, Ms Joyce


Durant, Tony
Raffan, Keith


Eastham, Ken
Rhodes James, Robert


Emery, Sir Peter
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Rowlands, Ted


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Ryder, Richard


Forman, Nigel
Salmond, Alex


Foster, Derek
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Steel, Rt Hon David


George, Bruce
Stevens, Lewis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Stott, Roger


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Thorne, Neil


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Thurnham, Peter


Grocott, Bruce
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Vaz, Keith


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Haynes, Frank
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Wallace, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Home Robertson, John
Wareing, Robert N.


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Warren, Kenneth


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Howells, Geraint
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Hoyle, Doug
Wheeler, John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Wiggin, Jerry


Illsley, Eric
Wilson, Brian


Janman, Timothy
Wood, Timothy


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)



Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Leighton, Ron
Sir John Stradling Thomas and Sir Michael Shaw.


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark



Lightbown, David





NOES


Beggs, Roy
Nellist, Dave


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Clay, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Kilfedder, James



McCrea, Rev William
Tellers for the Noes:


Maginnis, Ken
Rev. Ian Paisley and Mr. William Ross.


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)



Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Question accordingly agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT

Motion made, and Question put,
That Mr. Simon Coombs, Mr. Ken Eastham, Sir Philip Goodhart, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Ron Leighton, Mr. Iain Mills, Mr. James Paice, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Lewis Stevens and Mr. David Young be members of the Employment Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

The House divided:Ayes 125, Noes 17.

Division No. 97]
[12.31 am


AYES


Alton, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Lightbown, David


Ashdown, Paddy
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Ashton, Joe
McGrady, E. K.


Baldry, Tony
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Batiste, Spencer
Maclean, David


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
McWilliam, John


Beith, A. J.
Mallon, Seamus


Bermingham, Gerald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Mates, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Boyes, Roland
Michael, Alun


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Miller, Hal


Buckley, George
Mills, Iain


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Canavan, Dennis
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Morgan, Rhodri


Cartwright, John
Morley, Elliott


Conway, Derek
Murphy, Paul


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Neubert, Michael


Cran, James
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Crowther, Stan
Page, Richard


Cummings, J.
Pendry, Tom


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Pike, Peter


Dewar, Donald
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dixon, Don
Quin, Ms Joyce


Dobson, Frank
Raffan, Keith


Dorrell, Stephen
Rhodes James, Robert


Douglas, Dick
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Dover, Den
Rowlands, Ted


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Ryder, Richard


Durant, Tony
Salmond, Alex


Eastham, Ken
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Emery, Sir Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Stevens, Lewis


Foster, Derek
Stott, Roger


Fox, Sir Marcus
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


George, Bruce
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Thorne, Neil


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Thurnham, Peter


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Vaz, Keith


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Grocott, Bruce
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Wallace, James


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Haynes, Frank
Wareing, Robert N.


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Warren, Kenneth


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Wheeler, John


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Howells, Geraint
Wiggin, Jerry


Hoyle, Doug
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Wood, Timothy


Illsley, Eric
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Janman, Timothy



Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Sir John Stradling Thomas and Sir Michael Shaw.


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael



Leighton, Ron







NOES


Beggs, Roy
Paisley, Rev Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Clay, Bob
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Kilfedder, James
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Maginnis, Ken



Meale, Alan
Tellers for the Noes:


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. Clifford Forsythe and Rev. William McCrea.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James



Nellist, Dave

Question accordingly agreed to.

ENERGY

Motion made, and Question put,
That Mr. Michael Brown, Dr. Michael Clark. Mr. Geoffrey Dickens, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. Ted Leadbitter, Sir Ian Lloyd, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse, Mr. Rhodri Morgan, Mr. Peter Rost, Mr. Alex Salmond and Mr. Tony Speller be members of the Energy Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 16.

Division No. 99]
[12.54 am


AYES


Alton, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Ashdown, Paddy
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Ashton, Joe
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Baldry, Tony
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Batiste, Spencer
Grocott, Bruce


Beith, A. J.
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Haynes, Frank


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Boswell, Tim
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Boyes, Roland
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Buckley, George
Howells, Geraint


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hoyle, Doug


Canavan, Dennis
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Illsley, Eric


Cartwright, John
Janman, Timothy


Conway, Derek
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cran, James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Crowther, Stan
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Cummings, J.
Lightbown, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
McGrady, E. K.


Dewar, Donald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dixon, Don
Maclean, David


Dobson, Frank
McWilliam, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Mallon, Seamus


Douglas, Dick
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dover, Den
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mates, Michael


Durant, Tony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Eastham, Ken
Michael, Alun


Emery, Sir Peter
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Miller, Hal


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mills, Iain


Foster, Derek
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fox, Sir Marcus
Morgan, Rhodri


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morley, Elliott


George, Bruce
Murphy, Paul






Neubert, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Page, Richard
Wallace, James


Pendry, Tom
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pike, Peter
Wareing, Robert N.


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Warren, Kenneth


Raffan, Keith
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rowlands, Ted
Wheeler, John


Ryder, Richard
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Salmond, Alex
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilson, Brian


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wood, Timothy


Stevens, Lewis
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Stott, Roger



Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Sir John Stradling Thomas and Sir Michael Shaw.


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Thorne, Neil



Thurnham, Peter





NOES


Beggs, Roy
Paisley, Rev Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Clay, Bob
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Kilfedder, James



Meale, Alan
Tellers for the Noes:


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. Ken Maginnis and Rev. William McCrea.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James



Nellist, Dave

Question accordingly agreed to.

ENVIRONMENT

Motion made, and Question put,
That Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Paul Boateng, Mr. John Cummings, Mr. Richard Holt, Mr. Andrew Hunter, Mr. Robert B. Jones, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. Tom Pendry, Mr. Peter L. Pike, Sir Hugh Rossi and Mr. Robin Squire be members of the Environment Committee — [Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection]

The House divided:Ayes 11 6, Noes 17.

Question accordingly agreed to.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Motion made, and Question put,
That Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. David Howell, Mr. Michael Jopling, Mr. Ivan Lawrence, Mr. Jim Lester, Mr. Ted Rowlands, Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. Ian Taylor, Mr. Peter Temple-Morris, Mr. Bowen Wells and Mr. Michael Welsh be members of the Foreign Affairs Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

The House proceeded to a Division:

Mr. Hal Miller (Bromsgrove) (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to submit a manuscript amendment, suggesting that my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) be omitted from motions put forward by the Committee of Selection as they apparently are no longer here to vote or to show interest in the proceedings?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am not prepared to accept manuscript amendments along those lines.

The House having divided:Ayes 113, Noes 16.

Question accordingly agreed to.

HOME AFFAIRS

Motion made, and Question put,
That Mr. David Ashby, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. David Clelland, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. John Greenway, Mr. Ivor Stanbrook, Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. John Wheeler and Mr. Tony Worthington be members of the Home Affairs Committee—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 16.

Division 10]
[1.04 am


AYES


Alton, David
Canavan, Dennis


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Cartwright, John


Ashdown, Paddy
Conway, Derek


Ashton, Joe
Cran, James


Baldry, Tony
Crowther, Stan


Batiste, Spencer
Cummings, J.


Beith, A. J.
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dewar, Donald


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dixon, Don


Boswell, Tim
Dobson, Frank


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dorrell, Stephen


Buckley, George
Douglas, Dick


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Dover, Den





Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Miller, Hal


Durant, Tony
Mills, Iain


Eastham, Ken
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Emery, Sir Peter
Morgan, Rhodri


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Morley, Elliott


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Murphy, Paul


Foster, Derek
Neubert, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Page, Richard


George, Bruce
Pike, Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Raffan, Keith


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Rowlands, Ted


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Ryder, Richard


Grocott, Bruce
Salmond, Alex


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Haynes, Frank
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Stevens, Lewis


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Stott, Roger


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Howells, Geraint
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hoyle, Doug
Thorne, Neil


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Thurnham, Peter


Illsley, Eric
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Ingram, Adam
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Wallace, James


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower;


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Wareing, Robert N.


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Warren, Kenneth


Lightbown, David
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McGrady, E. K.
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wheeler, John


Maclean, David
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


McLeish, Henry
Wiggin, Jerry


McWilliam, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Mallon, Seamus
Wood, Timothy


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)



Mates, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sir John Stradling Thomas and Sir Michael Shaw


Michael, Alun



Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)





NOES


Beggs, Roy
Nellist, Dave


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Paisley, Rev Ian


Clay, Bob
Floss, William (Londonderry E)


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Kilfedder, James



McCrea, Rev William
Tellers for the Noes:


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. Ken Maginnis and Mr. Peter Robinson.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Division No. 101]
[1.15 am


AYES


Alton, David
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Beith, A. J.


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashdown, Paddy
Bevan, David Gilroy


Ashton, Joe
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Baldry, Tony
Boswell, Tim






Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Maclean, David


Buckley, George
McLeish, Henry


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McWilliam, John


Canavan, Dennis
Mallon, Seamus


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cartwright, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Conway, Derek
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Cran, James
Michael, Alun


Crowther, Stan
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Cummings, J.
Miller, Hal


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mills, Iain


Dewar, Donald
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Dixon, Don
Morgan, Rhodri


Dobson, Frank
Morley, Elliott


Dorrell, Stephen
Murphy, Paul


Douglas, Dick
Neubert, Michael


Dover, Den
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Pike, Peter


Durant, Tony
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Eastham, Ken
Raffan, Keith


Emery, Sir Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Ryder, Richard


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Salmond, Alex


Foster, Derek
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


George, Bruce
Steel, Rt Hon David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Stevens, Lewis


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Thorne, Neil


Grocott, Bruce
Thurnham, Peter


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Vaz, Keith


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Haynes, Frank
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Wallace, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Wareing, Robert N.


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Warren, Kenneth


Howells, Geraint
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Hoyle, Doug
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Wheeler, John


Illsley, Eric
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Ingram, Adam
Wiggin, Jerry


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Wood, Timothy


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark



Lightbown, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


McGrady, E. K.
Sir Hugh Rossi and Mr. Michael Mates.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)





NOES


Beggs, Roy
Nellist, Dave


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Paisley, Rev Ian


Clay, Bob
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Kilfedder, James



Maginnis, Ken
Tellers for the Noes:


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. William Ross and Rev. William McCrea.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Question accordingly agreed to.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Motion made, and Question put,
That Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Mr. Terry Patchett, Sir David Price, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. Roger Sims, the Reverend Martin Smyth, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mrs. Audrey Wise and Mr. Tim Yeo be members of the Social Service Committee.

The House proceeded to a Division:—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will

you reconsider the ruling that you gave some minutes ago to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller), who asked you to consider accepting a manuscript amendment to delete the names of the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) from the motion? As you were unwilling to accept that, might it not be in order for us to advise the House to vote against this particular motion on the basis that those hon. Members have slighted the House by going home and failing to turn up for the Division?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Who stays and who goes home is nothing to do with the Chair, and I am relieved that it is not.

The House having divided:Ayes 106, Noes 18.

Question accordingly agreed to.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Motion made, and Question put,
That Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. James Cran, Mr. Stan Crowther, Dr. John Gilbert, Sir Anthony Grant, Dr. Keith Hampson, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop, Mr. Barry Porter and Mr. Kenneth Warren be members of the Trade and Industry Committee. — [Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

The House divided:Ayes 111, Noes 16.

Division No. 103]
[1.36 am


AYES


Alton, David
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Illsley, Eric


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Ingram, Adam


Ashdown, Paddy
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Ashton, Joe
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Baldry, Tony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Batiste, Spencer
Lightbown, David


Beith, A. J.
Macdonald, Calum


Bermingham, Gerald
McGrady, E. K.


Bevan, David Gilroy
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Maclean, David


Boswell, Tim
McLeish, Henry


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McWilliam, John


Buckley, George
Mallon, Seamus


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cartwright, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Conway, Derek
Michael, Alun


Cran, James
Miller, Hal


Crowther, Stan
Mills, Iain


Cummings, J.
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Morgan, Rhodri


Darling, Alastair
Morley, Elliott


Dewar, Donald
Murphy, Paul


Dixon, Don
Neubert, Michael


Dobson, Frank
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Doran, Frank
Page, Richard


Dorrell, Stephen
Pike, Peter


Douglas, Dick
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dover, Den
Raffan, Keith


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Rowlands, Ted


Durant, Tony
Ryder, Richard


Eastham, Ken
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Foster, Derek
Steel, Rt Hon David


Fox, Sir Marcus
Stevens, Lewis


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


George, Bruce
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Thorne, Neil


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Thurnham, Peter


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Vaz, Keith


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Grocott, Bruce
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Wallace, James


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Haynes, Frank
Wareing, Robert N.


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Warren, Kenneth


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Wheeler, John


Howells, Geraint
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Hoyle, Doug
Wiggin, Jerry





Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wood, Timothy
Sir Hugh Rossi and Mr. Michael Mates.


Young, David (Bolton SE)





NOES


Beggs, Roy
Nellist, Dave


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Paisley, Rev Ian


Clay, Bob
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Kilfedder, James



Maginnis, Ken
Tellers for the Noes:


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. William Ross and Rev. William McCrea.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Question accordingly agreed to.

TRANSPORT

Motion made, and Question put,
That Mr. David Gilroy Bevan, Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Derek Conway, Mr. Terry Dicks, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Peter Fry, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. David Mudd and Mr. Neville Trotter be members of the Transport Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

The House divided:Ayes 108, Noes 17.

Division No. 104]
[1.47 am


AYES


Alton, David
Haynes, Frank


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Ashdown, Paddy
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Ashton, Joe
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Baldry, Tony
Howells, Geraint


Batiste, Spencer
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Beith, A. J.
Illsley, Eric


Bermingham, Gerald
Ingram, Adam


Bevan, David Gilroy
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Boswell, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lightbown, David


Buckley, George
Macdonald, Calum


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
McGrady, E. K.


Cartwright, John
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Conway, Derek
Maclean, David


Cran, James
McLeish, Henry


Crowther, Stan
McWilliam, John


Cummings, J.
Mallon, Seamus


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Darling, Alastair
Meale, Alan


Dewar, Donald
Michael, Alun


Dixon, Don
Mills, Iain


Dobson, Frank
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Doran, Frank
Morgan, Rhodri


Dorrell, Stephen
Morley, Elliott


Douglas, Dick
Murphy, Paul


Dover, Den
Neubert, Michael


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Durant, Tony
Page, Richard


Eastham, Ken
Pike, Peter


Emery, Sir Peter
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Raffan, Keith


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Rowlands, Ted


Foster, Derek
Ryder, Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Steel, Rt Hon David


George, Bruce
Stevens, Lewis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Stott, Roger


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Thorne, Neil


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Thurnham, Peter






Vaz, Keith
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Wiggin, Jerry


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Wallace, James
Wood, Timothy


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wareing, Robert N.



Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Sir Hugh Rossi and Mr. Michael Mates.


Wheeler, John





NOES


Beggs, Roy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Nellist, Dave


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Paisley, Rev Ian


Clay, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)



Kilfedder, James
Tellers for the Noes:


McCrea, Rev William
Mr. William Ross and Mr. Peter Robinson.


Maginnis, Ken



Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Question accordingly agreed to.

WELSH AFFAIRS

Motion made, and Question put,
That Mr. Nicholas Bennett, Sir Raymond Gower, Mr. Gwilym Jones, Mr. Richard Livsey, Sir Anthony Meyer, Mr. Paul Murphy, Mr. Keith Raffan, Sir John Stradling Thomas, Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas, Mr. Gareth Wardell and Mr. Alan W. Williams be members of the Welsh Affairs Committee — [Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection]

The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 16.

Division No. 105]
[1.57 am


AYES


Alton, David
Cartwright, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Conway, Derek


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Cran, James


Ashdown, Paddy
Crowther, Stan


Baldry, Tony
Cummings, J.


Batiste, Spencer
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beith, A. J.
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bermingham, Gerald
Darling, Alastair


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dewar, Donald


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dixon, Don


Boswell, Tim
Dobson, Frank


Bradley, Keith
Doran, Frank


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dorrell, Stephen


Buckley, George
Douglas, Dick


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Dover, Den


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Durant, Tony





Eastham, Ken
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Emery, Sir Peter
Morgan, Rhodri


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morley, Elliott


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Murphy, Paul


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Neubert, Michael


Foster, Derek
Page, Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Pike, Peter


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Raffan, Keith


George, Bruce
Rowlands, Ted


Golding, Mrs Llin
Ryder, Richard


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Stevens, Lewis


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Stott, Roger


Haynes, Frank
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Thorne, Neil


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Thurnham, Peter


Howells, Geraint
Vaz, Keith


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Illsley, Eric
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ingram, Adam
Wallace, James


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Wareing, Robert N.


Lightbown, David
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McCartney, Ian
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Macdonald, Calum
Wheeler, John


McGrady, E. K.
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wiggin, Jerry


Maclean, David
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McLeish, Henry
Wood, Timothy


McWilliam, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mallon, Seamus



Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michael, Alun
Sir Hugh Rossi and Mr. Michael Mates.


Miller, Hal



Mills, Iain





AYES


Beggs, Roy
Nellist, Dave


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Paisley, Rev Ian


Clay, Bob
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Cryer, Bob
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Kilfedder, James



Maginnis, Ken
Tellers for the Noes:


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. A. Cecil Walker and Rev. William McCrea.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Question accordingly agreed to.

PETITION

Rating Reform

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I have the honour of presenting a petition to the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled on behalf of Park community council, and, associated with it, the following organisations in the constituency of Maryhill employees of East park children's home, the Glenavon action group, the Lochburn tenants' association, the Oran street sheltered housing tenants' association, the Woodside tenants' association and numerous other constituents of Maryhill.
So keen were they to display their opposition to this iniquitous Act affecting Scotland that they queued outside on a rainy day to sign the petition. All those who signed it are reaffirming the opposition that they showed to the poll tax at the time of the general election. In supporting the petition, I would point out that in a turnout of over 52,000 at the general election, only 3,000 could be found to support the one candidate who advocated the poll tax.
I am aware of no organisation in Maryhill that supports the poll tax.
At a later date I shall bring forward further petitions from organisations in Maryhill opposed to this poll tax. Unless, in the coming weeks and months, the Government pay attention to the wishes of the people of Scotland, expressed here tonight by my constituents and by others the result of the next general election in Scotland will be even more unfortunate for the Government.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. John Baker (Overtime)

Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Richard Page: This Adjournment debate concerns a simple constituency case that, rather like Topsy, has grown and grown.
This case is also a splendid example of democracy at work. A constituent may have a grievance against a local health authority, but is stonewalled by that authority. He can take that matter one stage further by approaching his Member of Parliament, who will have the case put before the Ombudsman. If the Ombudsman refuses to take up the case, he can, through his Member of Parliament, put his case to the Minister. If the Minister declines to take up the matter and refers it all the way back to the health authority, there is still the forum of the House in which a constituent's claim, right or wrong, can be heard rather than brushed away by one side or another.
My constituent, Mr. John Baker, worked for four and a half years for the Hillingdon health authority as a medical technician No. 3. He left that authority on II October 1985. He came to me in November 1986 and claimed that he had been paid only 27·1 per cent. out of a total of 324·4 hours of overtime owing. He had put in that claim before leaving. He told me that he was paid the 27·1 per cent. with no explanation and that that was the end of the matter.
Mr. Baker came to my surgery on 15 November and, on 17 November, I wrote to Hillingdon health authority. I received a letter back from the chairman, Mr. David Swarbrick, on 12 December 1986.
No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your capacity as a constituency Member of Parliament, have had experience of the "try-on merchants" who come along to our surgeries. They put their case and think that one letter from their Member of Parliament will ensure that all their problems will disappear, even though they know that they have no right to what they are asking for.
I received a reply from David Swarbrick that effectively said that Mr. Baker did not deserve and was not entitled to the money. I communicated that fact to Mr. Baker. He vehemently rejected those comments and drew my attention to a couple of points. One of those was that, when he put in his claim to the salaries and wages department, it was accompanied by a letter signed by his departmental head, Dr. Thompson, the chief physicist, that said:
I write to confirm that payment for 324·4 hours is due to Mr. Baker.
That letter did not appear to carry any weight with David Swarbrick, who wrote back to say that the claim had been investigated and checked by the internal audit department. However, if I was looking for a shining example of efficiency and accountancy control, the Health Service would not come top of my list.
My constituent then wrote directly to Dr. Thompson regarding the memo from David Swarbrick and he received a reply that I regard as a triumph in balancing truth and expediency. He got a letter back which used phrases such as
My advice to you, which may be painful, is to accept the ex-gratia payment offered by the health authority".
The letter went on to say:


It is unfortunately true that we cannot independently confirm the time clock figures in detail
and
I am sure that everybody acted in good faith".
Here was the management of the health authority telling an employee that it was terribly sorry but the wage control system was inadequate, so it would not pay him, that he, the employee, was to be penalised for the failure of management.
I was somewhat puzzled by this. I looked at the work carried out by this department and by Dr. Thompson and found that it is responsible for calibrating the scanners and for making sure that all the X-ray machines are in order. If this man is to be dismissed by the internal audit department of the Hillingdon health authority as being 72·9 per cent. wrong, I shudder to think what happens when the other work of the department is being done. I hope that the scanners are not calibrated with such a margin of error they will not do a very good job.
I decided that, if I were not going to get any further with the health authority, I would go to the Ombudsman, because there were one or two details which I thought could be regarded as maladministration; but that was dismissed and it was decided that my constituent could not be taken on. So I wrote to my hon. Friend in the Department. I will not go through the series of letters that went not only to her but originally, before the election, to the noble Lady the Baroness Trumpington. But in the end it was all referred back to the Hillingdon health authority, the very body that had made no progress. So I decided to delve into this matter just a little more closely myself.
I found that this 27·1 per cent. payment had been made tax-free. I wondered what special arrangements the Hillingdon health authority had to pay money tax-free. Then I discovered that this payment had been made not only to Mr. Baker but also to three other employees who had continued to work for the authority. One of these gentlemen received his payment tax-free. I wondered whether it would be possible to have some of my parliamentary salary paid tax-free, because that would be of immense benefit to me.
I am not an extrovert Member of Parliament. I am not one of those who go in for the photo calls and the flashy publicity, but I have got my teeth into this item. I really would welcome an answer rather than having the run-around that I have been getting for nearly a year. So I decided to look into the matter even more closely, and I found from another of the three gentlemen whom I mentioned a little earlier — who, according to the chairman of the health authority, Mr. Swarbrick, are satisfied with the arrangement — that he was absolutely convinced that the hours that they had put in for were absolutely correct. I am told that the system was changed on 1 January 1986, but I have discovered that they are still using the same time clocks; however, instead of allowing the hours to build up and up over the year, payment is made each week.
Further investigation showed that it has been the practice in the past for workers to have time off if they were owed money on overtime, if they left for other employment. I have three examples of this having been done in the past. In one instance — I am now going back to 1975 — I discovered that when moneys were owing, they were paid off at just over 50 per cent.— tax-free.
But, of course, income tax then stood at 33 per cent. in the pound and the difference was not so great between that and the total payment. I understand that some of them had a little time off in lieu to make up the balance.
So there appears to have been a known system, of which my constituent was a part, that allowed hours to accumulate in large numbers and then be wiped off in tax-free payments and/or time off in lieu. I must emphasise that an employee — not the management — worked in a health authority where it appeared to be standard working practice to allow all that to happen and then to be settled in the way that I have described. The House can appreciate my constituent's surprise when he found that the rules that operated for the hours that he had legitimately clocked up did not apply in his case.
It was the known working practice in that hospital for employers to have time off in lieu. My constituent's claim was endorsed by his manager. His claim was verified by a colleague, and there has been no explanation.
I should like from my hon. Friend some answer to the problem. I am sorry that it has been presented so late at night after a series of important but rather wasteful and time-consuming Divisions. I welcome what my hon. Friend has to say in reply, but if she has no particular answer to the question tonight and would like to write to me later, that would be adequate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) on winning the ballot and raising the question of Mr. Baker's dispute with Hillingdon health authority. He has shown, once again, the concern for his constituents that he has shown on many occasions in the House.
Problems appear to have been happening with overtime recording in the medical physics department of Mount Vernon hospital as far back as 10 years ago. Mr. Baker was not then involved. He did not join the department until 1981. But one employee managed to build a backlog of unclaimed, unsupported overtime between 1976 and 1978, which caused some concern.
As a result, in 1978, a flexitime system for the laboratory was brought in to enable staff to take time off in lieu. The object of the exercise, as least in part, was to reduce the cost of overtime to the health authority. One condition introduced was that overtime payments should be claimed promptly and no backlog accumulated. For some time, overtime claims were submitted regularly by all technicians and no backlog of official verifiable overtime was allowed to accumulate.
In October 1981, as my hon. Friend says, Mr. Baker joined the health authority and started working in the laboratory. He left in October 1985. Month by month, as required, he submitted an overtime claim, which was paid promptly and over the four years he had been paid approximately £650, plus call-in payments, and presumably he had taken time off in lieu as well, as was agreed.
During the four years, he submitted no other claims for overtime payments, was not in dispute with his employer, did not operate any grievance procedure, and all his claims were fully met, without dispute and on time. In other words, during that time he appeared to have no complaints whatever about his employment. Then he gave in his notice and, at the same time, submitted a claim for four


years' overtime over and above that already paid, for the sum of £1,674. At about the same time, three other colleagues in the same laboratory made similar claims of roughly the same magnitude as Mr. Baker's.
The claim was based on time clock readings. The clocks were activated by a key insert system. The key is turned when the operative comes in, a light goes on and from that point it starts to accumulate time. The key is specific to that particular clock and it is held by one person only— that particular operative. The clocks go on accumulating hours if no one turns them off — for example, if someone forgets when they go home for lunch, or, indeed, for the weekend. As far as I know, they cannot be corrected or turned back. The operative himself has a key for his own clock and only he can operate it.
Clearly, that is not the height of technical achievement in timekeeping and I was disappointed to hear this afternoon that they are still in use. I have conveyed to the health authority my views on whether that is appropriate. Nor is it a system that auditors would back for payments to the operatives concerned. It was never intended for such use. I am told that the machines were intended merely to show which technicians were on duty. The readings were kept fortnightly or weekly but were used for not very clear purposes. The recording system for overtime, which was the basis for payment, was a book or timesheet, which was verified regularly by the supervisor. That is the standard system, and it is still in use. It has given rise to no disputes since Mr. Baker left and it has satisfied the internal auditor. It accords with overtime systems that are in use outside the NHS.
It further appears that Mr. Baker's machine was faulty on more than one occasion and was giving false readings. As overtime was paid from the timesheets, it did not appear to local management to matter very much. It appears that Mr. Baker was not concerned either. He did not submit claims for extra hours at any time in the four years except when he was due to leave.
I note the points that are made in the correspondence —I have a large file on it—and those that have been made tonight about the confirmation given by the head of department, Dr. Thompson, to Mr. Baker's claim. Dr. Thompson neither sought nor obtained authorisation for the acknowledgement that he made of the claim, which was made up to four years after the event. Dr. Thompson had no means of verifying the claim, and the clock was not intended as a record of payment. It was never used in that way, and if it had been the district health authority would have exercised its obligations to ensure that the clock was calibrated and functioned properly, was used accurately and was taken into the payment system regularly. In the two years since the claim was raised, the internal audit and management have ensured that the staff know how to record and claim overtime. It is now being claimed one month in arrears and no retrospective unclaimed overtime has been allowed to accumulate.
The district health authority acknowledges some fault. The system itself—the clock, the muddle over what was overtime and all the rest of it—was faulty. The head of department gave the staff concerned a promise in writing that the claim should be met—he should not have done so, but he did.
Although the district health authority disputed the claim, it was on that basis that it was willing to meet the claimants half way. It discussed the matter with the central DHSS audit staff and then made payments to the four

claimants of about 50 per cent of the value of the claims. Three of the staff accepted the claims in full settlement. Mr. Baker took his cheque and cashed it in October 1986,, but has since pressed for more money. I understand that he has consulted a solicitor as well as my hon. Friend, but no legal claim has been entered into court or received by the district health authority. I have in front of me Mr. Baker's letter of 4 November 1986, in which he sets out the details of his claim. He states that he feels that he has 324 hours of overtime owed to him over and above the claims that he made during the four years which were met.
Mr. Baker claims an hourly overtime rate of £5·16, and that is how he arrives at his calculation of £1,674. However, if the claim was met for 1981, it would be at £3·63 an hour, not £5·16. It would be £3·84 for 1982, £4·09 for 1983 and £4·98 for 1984. The claim, based on overtime rates in operation, would be £1,367, not £1,674. Mr. Baker has accepted already an ex gratia payment of £454·46, which excluded the taxation, superannuation and national insurance deductions that would have been payable. That is the normal way in which an ex gratia payment might be made. The sum is equivalent to a gross payment of about £700, which is slightly more than the corrected amount that is being claimed. That is the explanation of the figures that have been arrived at. Other employees have accepted and settled on the same basis as that which I have outlined and the health authority is not prepared to meet the claim for the sum that Mr. Baker considers he is due.
There are open to him various procedures. My hon. Friend will know that Mr. Baker cannot activate the local grievance procedure, because he is no longer an employee of the health authority. The Health Service Commissioner rejected Mr. Baker's bid because an extension of the Health Service Commissioner's remit was not appropriate. Health Service personnel and contractual matters are not within his purview. The General Whitley Council requires a health authority to operate a grievance procedure, but would not become directly involved. The Whitley Council for Professional and Technical Staff B, which negotiates pay and conditions for medical physics technicians, would not be involved in a local dispute of this kind.
It is not for us to advise Mr. Baker on how to go forward. He knows how to decide, no doubt with the advice of my hon. Friend, exactly what steps he wishes to take. For example, he can discuss the matter with his union —if he has one —or he can decide on whether it is a matter on which he feels he would like to seek further legal advice.
I regret to say that Ministers have no part whatever to play in this. The relationship is between the employee and the employer, which is the health authority, not Ministers. The basis of this is the National Health Service Act 1977, schedule 5(10) which says:
an authority … may employ … such officers as it may determine at such remuneration and on such conditions of service as it may determine;".
Since Mr. Baker's letter of 4 November 1986, to which I have referred, there has been extensive correspondence between my hon. Friend and the authority, the Ombudsman and Ministers. I have also discussed the matter with Hillingdon district health authority officials, and I have read the entire large file on this case. The health authority has made from public funds—which are not in excessive supply—a payment which in the circumstances I consider reasonable.
My hon. Friend's constituent persists in a claim that can only be described as inaccurate, unsupported and unrealistic. My hon. Friend has shown in this debate the outstanding characteristics for which his constituents elected him in June, but I cannot help him in the way he

wishes. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept what I say in the spirit in which it is offered and that he will advise his constituent accordingly.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Three o'clock.